alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Cite as 2013 Ark. 351

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

No. CV-11-486

CAROLYN DIANNE ZACHRY 

 APPELLANT

V.

RAY HOBBS, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION

 APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered September 26, 2013

APPEAL FROM THE JACKSON

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, 34CV-09-

99, HON. HAROLD S. ERWIN, JUDGE 

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

On May 11, 2009, appellant Carolyn Dianne Zachry filed a pro se petition for writ of

habeas corpus in the Jackson County Circuit Court. In her petition, appellant states that she is

an inmate incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) at a facility in Jackson

County. The circuit court denied the petition, and appellant lodged this appeal. 

We dismiss the appeal because the Jackson County Circuit Court can no longer grant the

relief requested by appellant. An appeal from an order that denied a petition for postconviction

relief, including a petition for writ of habeas corpus, will not be permitted to go forward where

it is clear that the appellant could not prevail. Wilencewicz v. Hobbs, 2012 Ark. 230 (per curiam);

Fudge v. Hobbs, 2012 Ark. 80 (per curiam).

Any petition for writ of habeas corpus to effect the release of a prisoner is properly

addressed to the circuit court in the county in which the prisoner is held in custody, unless the

petition is filed pursuant to Act 1780 of 2001. Wilencewicz, 2012 Ark. 230; Davis v. Hobbs, 2012

Ark. 167 (per curiam). Appellant’s petition was not filed under Act 1780, and the public records
Cite as 2013 Ark. 351

of the ADC confirm that appellant is now incarcerated in a facility in Pulaski County.

A circuit court does not have jurisdiction to release on a writ of habeas corpus a prisoner

not in custody in that court’s jurisdiction. Chestang v. Hobbs, 2011 Ark. 404 (per curiam);

Buckhanna v. Hobbs, 2011 Ark. 119 (per curiam). When a prisoner who seeks habeas relief is

transferred to a facility in a different county, the circuit court in the county where the prisoner

was previously incarcerated no longer has jurisdiction to issue and make a returnable writ. 

Wilencewicz, 2012 Ark. 230. Although the Jackson County Circuit Court may have retained

subject-matter jurisdiction, it does not retain personal jurisdiction over the person in whose

custody the prisoner is detained, and an order by that court will not act to effect her release. Id. 

This court will dismiss an appeal of the denial of a petition for writ of habeas corpus where the

appellant is no longer incarcerated in the county where her petition was filed because the court

can no longer grant the relief sought. Id.

Appeal dismissed.

J. Brooks Wiggins, for appellant.

Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Ashley Argo Priest, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee. 

2
```

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 2, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 71415]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-28394]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9919-99-OW]

Information Session; Stakeholder Input on Implementation of the 
Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 2014

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is convening an 
information and stakeholder input session in Washington, DC on December 
8, 2014. The purpose of the session is to discuss implementation of the 
Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 2014 (WIFIA). WIFIA 
is an innovative financing mechanism for water-related infrastructure 
of national or regional significance. It was signed into law on June 
11, 2014. EPA will be providing an overview of the statute, assistance 
options and terms, and suggesting ideas for implementing the program. 
The agency would like participants to discuss project ideas and 
potential selection criteria; opportunities, challenges and questions 
about implementation; and future stakeholder engagement. The intended 
audience is municipal, state and regional utility decision makers; 
private finance sector representatives; and other interested 
organizations and parties.

DATES: The session in Washington, DC will be held on December 8, 2014 
from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., eastern standard time.

ADDRESSES: The session will be held in Room 1153 at the EPA William 
Jefferson Clinton East Building, 1201 Constitution Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20004. All attendees must go through a metal detector, 
sign in with the security desk and show government-issued photo 
identification to enter government buildings.
    To Register: Please register at the following link: http://goo.gl/1dSOXA. Members of the public are invited to participate in the session 
as capacity allows.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information about this 
notice, including registration information, contact Peter Shanaghan, 
EPA Headquarters, Office of Water, Office of Ground Water and Drinking 
Water 202-564-3848; or Jordan Dorfman, EPA Headquarters, Office of 
Water, Office of Wastewater Management at 202-564-0614; or email: 
WIFIA@epa.gov.

    Dated: November 24, 2014.
Andrew D. Sawyers,
Director, Office of Wastewater Management.
[FR Doc. 2014-28394 Filed 12-1-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
<PAGE>   1


                                                                Exhibit 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of
Sunstone Hotel Investors, Inc. on Form S-3 being filed under the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, of our report dated March 28, 1996 on our audits of the
consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Sunstone
Hotel Investors, Inc. and Sunstone Initial Hotels (the Predecessor), of our
report dated March 22, 1996 on our audit of the financial statements of Sunstone
Hotel Properties, Inc. (the Lessee) appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K,
as amended, of Sunstone Hotel Investors, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended
December 31, 1995, of our report dated January 31, 1996 on our audit of the
combined financial statements of The Cypress Inns, Acquisition Hotels, appearing
in the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K/A filed April 19, 1996, or our
report dated June 7, 1996 on our audit of the financial statements of Renton
Joint Venture and of our report dated July 2, 1996 on our audit of the combined
financial statements of Bay City Hospitality, Inc. and Price Hospitality, Inc.
appearing in the Prospectus filed pursuant to Rule 424(b)(4) on August 8, 1996.
We also consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Experts."


/s/ COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
------------------------------------
Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.

Los Angeles, California
November 26, 1996
/s/ SQUAR, MILNER, PETERSON, MIRANDA & WILLIAMSON, LLP
Final Notes July 9, 2010 

### Steam Study Data Review Notes Cyanide Standard Method 4500 CN - 

### E (1990) (Colorimetric Method)

1. The sample should be diluted if necessary so that the aliquot used in the distillation step

contains ≤ 10 mg CN - /L.

2. If S 2- was detected, it should be removed to unde tected levels prior to distillation. If reported, indicate whether S 2- was detected and note the removal method (4500 CN C/4a).

3. The sample should be acidified prior to dist illation. The sample should be refluxed for ≥ 1 hour and after refluxing the heat should be discontinued, but air flow continued for ≥ 15 minutes (4500 CN C/4d).

4. After the addition of chloramine-T soluti on and acetate buffer, the sample should be allowed to stand for exactly 2 minutes. Afte r the addition of pyrid ine-barbituric acid reagent, the color should be allowed to develop for 8 minutes (4500 CN E/4b).

5. A spectrophotometer with the capability of taking measurements at 578 nm or a filter photometer having a maximum transmittance from 570 to 580 nm should be used in the analysis (4500 CN E/2).

6. Distillation standards should be periodically used to verify the accuracy of the apparatus, reagents, and/or other variab les. (For example, it is recommended that a standard containing 1mg CN - /L should have a percent recovery of 96 -104%) (4500 CN C/4g). If provided, what were the concentrations a nd percent recoveries of these standards?

7. * If the analyte concentration in a sample wa s less than 5 times the analyte concentration in the laboratory reagent blank (if reported 1 ), report the result as a nondetect. List all affected samples:

8. *If the analyte concentration in a sample wa s less than 10 times but greater than 5 times the analyte concentration in the la boratory reagent blank (if reported 1 ), was the result reported as an estimated value? List all affected samples.

1 Note: It is optional for the laboratory to analyze a separate blank other than the blank used to create the calibration

curve.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF**

**CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**OF MAX RE CAPITAL LTD.**

 

I, Robert J. Cooney, the Chief Executive Officer of Max Re Capital Ltd., certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Max Re Capital Ltd.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based upon such evaluation; and 

 

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b)any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 1, 2004
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
              By:
    /s/ PAUL M. BISAROPaul M. BisaroPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Balance
Sheet of Adams Outdoor Advertising, Inc. as of December 31, 1997 and the related
Statements of Operations and Cash Flows and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001011976
<NAME> ADAMS OUTDOOR ADVERTISING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                        40
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      40
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                        (60)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        40
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
#### Bill Loyd HARBER; Lucinda Earlene Harber, Appellants, v. ALTEC INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellee.

No. 93-1712.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 14, 1993.

Decided Sept. 22, 1993.

*340Richard Anderson, Kimberling City, MO, argued, for appellants.

Mary Anne Mellow, St. Louis, MO, argued, for appellee.

Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Bill Loyd Harber bought a used utility truck with an aerial lift bucket from Altec Industries, Inc., a used goods dealer. Altec sold the truck to Harber “as is” and disclaimed all warranties in the sales contract. While Harber was working in the elevated bucket four months after buying the truck, the bucket detached from the truck’s derrick arm and fell to the ground, injuring Harber. Harber and his spouse then brought this action alleging Altec was strictly liable for Harber’s injuries resulting from the bucket’s hidden defect, even though Altec did not design or manufacture the bucket, nor inspect, repair, or modify the equipment before its sale.

Altec moved for summary judgment asserting Altec could not be held strictly liable for the latent product defect under Missouri law. The district court granted Altec’s motion. *Harber v. Altec Indus., Inc.,*812 F.Supp. 954 (W.D.Mo.1993). Because Missouri has not decided whether the doctrine of strict liability applies to a seller of used goods, the district court attempted to predict whether the Missouri Supreme Court would extend the strict liability doctrine to Altec. After reviewing cases from other states and analyzing whether the policy reasons underlying strict liability would be furthered if applied to sellers of used goods like Altec, the district court concluded “the Missouri Supreme Court would not extend strict liability to include ... sellers of used goods who perform no maintenance, modification or repair on the used product and who successfully disclaim all warranties of title.” *Id.*at 965-66.

The Harbers appeal, suggesting we should certify the question to the Missouri Supreme Court. Although a Missouri statute provides we may certify unanswered questions of Missouri law to the Missouri Supreme Court, Mo.Stat.Ann. § 477.004 (Vernon Supp.1993), the Missouri Supreme Court has declined to answer our certified questions, holding the Missouri Constitution did not grant the court original jurisdiction to render opinions on questions of Missouri law certified by federal courts. *Zeman v. V.F. Factory Outlet, Inc.,*911 F.2d 107, 108-09 (8th Cir.1990). Like the district court, we are left to predict the Missouri Supreme Court’s answer to the question this case presents.

Having reviewed the issue de novo, paying particular attention to the Missouri law cited by the Harbers, we agree with the district court that the Missouri Supreme Court would not hold Altec strictly liable under the circumstances. We affirm on the basis of the district court’s well-reasoned opinion. *See*8th Cir.R. 47B.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to the requirement set forth
in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. § 1350), David T. Hung, M.D., President and Chief
Executive Officer of Medivation, Inc. (the Company), and C. Patrick Machado, Chief Business Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge:

1.The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009, to which this
Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Annual Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, as amended; and

2.The information contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

In Witness Whereof, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 15th day
of March, 2010.



|                                      |  |  |  |                                                   
|------------------------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------------------------------
|/s/ DAVID T. HUNG                     |  |  |  | /s/ C. PATRICK MACHADO                            
|David T. Hung, M.D.                   |  |  |  | C. Patrick Machado                                
|President and Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | Chief Business Officer and Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Medivation, Inc. under the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

              CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63
                         OF TITLE 18 UNITED STATES CODE

      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of CITGO Petroleum Corporation (the "Registrant"), does
hereby certify, to his knowledge, that:

      The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004
of the Registrant fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form
10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Registrant.

Dated: March 30, 2005                            /s/ Felix Rodriguez
                                                 ------------------------------
                                                 Name: Felix Rodriguez
                                                 Title: Chief Executive Officer
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1679/2006

of 14 November 2006         

amending and correcting Regulation (EC) No 1973/2004 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 as regards the support schemes provided for in Titles IV and IVa of that Regulation and the use of land set aside for the production of raw materials

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 of 29 September 2003 establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy and establishing certain support schemes for farmers and amending Regulations (EEC) No 2019/93, (EC) No 1452/2001, (EC) No 1453/2001, (EC) No 1454/2001, (EC) No 1868/94, (EC) No 1251/1999, (EC) No 1254/1999, (EC) No 1673/2000, (EEC) No 2358/71 and (EC) No 2529/2001 (1), and in particular Article 145(c) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EC) No 1973/2004 is hereby amended as follows:

Article 2

Regulation (EC) No 1973/2004 is hereby amended as follows:

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Points 1 and 2 of Article 1 shall apply from 1 January 2007.

Point 4 of Article 1 shall apply from 1 November 2006.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 14 November 2006.

For the Commission

Mariann FISCHER BOEL            

Member of the Commission

----

(1)OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1156/2006 (OJ L 208, 29.7.2006, p. 3).

(2)OJ L 345, 20.11.2004, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1250/2006 (OJ L 227, 19.8.2006, p. 23).

----

ANNEX I

                     ‘ANNEX IV

referred to in Articles 54(3) and 59(1) and referred to in Article 3(1)(a)(i), (c)(i) and (e)(i)

BASE AREAS

----

(1)  Including 256 816 ha irrigated maize.

(2)  In accordance with Article XIb of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003.’         

----

ANNEX II

                     ‘ANNEX XVIII

referred to in Articles 106(2) and 131

BEEF AND VEAL PAYMENTS

CLAIMED YEAR: ...

MEMBER STATE: ...

1.   SPECIAL PREMIUM

Number of animals

Number of producers

2.   DESEASONALISATION PREMIUM

3.   SUCKLER COW PREMIUM

4.   EXTENSIFICATION PAYMENT

4.1.   Application of the single stocking density (First subparagraph of Article 132(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003)

4.2.   Application of the two stocking densities (second subparagraph of Article 132(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003)

5.   PREMIUM EXEMPT THE DENSITY FACTOR

6.   SLAUGHTER PREMIUM

Number of animals

Number of producers

7.   SUCKLER COW QUOTA

----