alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

RAYSHALL THOMPSON, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 16-0645 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2010-158172-001

The Honorable Stephen P. Lynch, Judge Pro Tempore

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Rayshall Thompson, Eloy

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown, Judge Jennifer B. Campbell and Judge 

Margaret H. Downie delivered the decision of the Court.

FILED 10-10-2017
STATE v. THOMPSON

Decision of the Court

2

PER CURIAM: 

¶1 Petitioner Rayshall Thompson seeks review of the superior 

court's order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant 

to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is petitioner's second

successive petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court's ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is petitioner's burden to 

show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition 

for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1 (App. 2011) 

(petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court's order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of 

discretion. 

¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review and deny relief.
#### FULLERTON v. STATE.

No. 21711.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 5, 1941.

No attorney for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The conviction is for burglary. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of five years.

The indictment appears regular. The record is before this court without statement of facts or bills of exception, in the absence of which nothing is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 6200]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2790]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-173-000]

ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Change to FERC Gas 
Tariff

February 2, 2000.
    Take notice that on January 28, 2000, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) 
tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised 
Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheet, with an effective 
date of March 1, 2000.

Second Revised Sheet No. 45E.1

    ANR states that the purpose of the filing is to designate one 
additional point as being eligible for service under its existing Rate 
Schedule IPLS.
    ANR states that copies of the filing have been mailed to all 
affected customers and state regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call (202) 208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-2790 Filed 2-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Administration

          - [Notice 00-137] 

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

      ( print page 68162)    

# ACTION:

Notice of Prospective Patent License. 

# SUMMARY:

NASA hereby gives notice that Concepts ETI Inc., of White River Junction, has applied for a co-exclusive license to practice the invention described and claimed in NASA Case Number MFS 31303-1, entitled “Generalized Fluid System Simulation Program (GFSSP),” which is assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Written objections to the prospective grant of a license should be sent to: Mr. James McGroary, Patent Counsel/LS01, Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, AL 35812.

# DATES:

Responses to this notice must be received by January 16, 2001. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Sammy Nabors, Marshall Space Flight Center, Technology Transfer Department/CD30, Huntsville, AL 35812; Tel. (256) 544-5226. 

Dated: November 6, 2000. 

Edward A. Frankle, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 00-29016 Filed 11-13-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510-01-U
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Jorge Luis Estrella v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-17-00162-CR

Trial court case number: 13-DCR-064879

Trial court: 240th District Court of Fort Bend County

The record is due by April 17, 2017. The reporter’s record was filed on March 7, 2017. 

The clerk’s record has not yet been filed. Accordingly, appellant’s brief is not yet due. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 38.6(a) (appellant’s brief is due within 30 days after clerk’s record or reporter’s record 

is filed, whichever is later). 

On March 27, 2017, appellant prematurely filed a motion for extension of time to file his 

brief. We grant the motion and extend the deadline for appellant’s brief until 30 days after the 

clerk’s record is filed in this Court.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _/s/ Harvey Brown

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: March 30, 2017
#### SMITH v. KINCAID. TAYLOR v. HURST. BOWMAN v. PALMER. BRANDENBURG v. MAYS.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

May 18, 1951.

Jesse K. Lewis, Lexington, for appellants.

E. B. Rose, Beattyville, and Shumate & Shumate, Irvine, for appellees.

CULLEN, Commissioner.

These are election contest cases, in which, on a former appeal, this Court held there was such fraud in the election that neither contestant nor contestee could be adjudged to have been fairly elected. See 314 Ky. 333, 235 S.W.2d 62. Upon the cases being remanded, judgments were entered by the lower court adjudging that the elections were void, and requiring each party to pay his own costs in the lower court. From the judgments for costs, the present appeals are taken by the contestants. '

The records do not show the amount of costs involved. However, that is of no importance, because there can be no appeal to this Court from a judgment for costs, regardless of amount. Galvin v. Shafer, 130 Ky. 563, 113 S.W. 485; Higgins v. Utterback, 184 Ky. 105, 211 S.W. 412; Siddens v. Ennis, 217 Ky. 810, 290 S.W. 669; Howard v. Cockrell, 237 Ky. 504, 35 S.W.2d 884.

This Court having no jurisdiction, the appeals are dismissed. '
|     |                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (a) | A review of the Servicer’s activities and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement during the period from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2018 has been made under my supervision. |

|     |                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (b) | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period. |

|                                                                                                                           |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                           |
| /s/ Ryan M. Hershberger                                                                                                   |
| Ryan M. HershbergerAssistant Treasurer ofFord Motor Credit Company LLC,as Servicer of Ford Credit Auto Owner Trust 2015-A |
#### McQUEEN v. STATE.

No. 22145.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 3, 1942.

Paul Petty, of Ballinger, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

The offense is the unlawful possession of whiskey for the purpose of sale in a dry area; the punishment a fine of $150.

In order to sustain a conviction for the offense charged, it is necessary that the testimony show that Runnels County is a dry area within the meaning of the Texas Liquor Control Act, Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 666 — 1 et seq. The statement of facts contains no such proof. The evidence is, therefore, insufficient to support the conviction. See: Gribble v. State, 134 Tex.Cr.R. 442, 115 S.W.2d 962; Gribble v. State, 133 Tex.Cr.R. 357, 111 S.W.2d 276; Hardy v. State, 133 Tex.Cr.R. 619, 113 S.W.2d 918; Baldridge v. State, 132 Tex.Cr.R. 590, 106 S.W.2d 700; Humphreys v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 383, 99 S.W.2d 600; Green v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 552, 101 S.W.2d 241; Cunningham v. State, 132 Tex.Cr.R. 63, 102 S.W.2d 413; Stewart v. State, 132 Tex.Cr.R. 79, 102 S.W.2d 416.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Robert F. Westphal, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Erie County,

March 13, 1958.

*Ferdinand F. Di Bartolo, Jr.,*for appellant.

*John F. Dwyer, District Attorney (Leonard Walentynowicz*of counsel), for respondent.

Matthew J. Jasen, J.

Defendant was charged by an information of violating subdivision 2 of section 483 of the Penal Law on the complaint of a minor aged 14.

He was tried in the City Court of Buffalo without a jury and convicted, from which judgment of conviction he appeals.

The question presented is whether the defendant was prejudiced in his defense by the action of the District Attorney in offering proof of variance during the course of the trial as to the date of the alleged commission of the crime.

The defendant concedes that the trial court has the power to amend an information, before or during the course of a trial, even though the amendment may affect a matter of substance, provided the defendant is not thereby prejudiced.

Therefore, the only question before the court is whether or not the defendant was in fact prejudiced in his defense.

*57The court has carefully read the voluminous 272-page record of testimony in this trial and found that the defendant’s counsel objected to testimony being offered by the District Attorney during the course of the trial; that the alleged offense was committed on the 11th day of June, 1957 instead of the 17th day of June, 1957 as stated in the information. Defense counsel objected, claiming surprise. The trial court considered the objection and overruled same, permitting the testimony to be presented.

Nowhere in the record does defense counsel request an adjournment for the purpose of preparing a defense as to the amended date of the alleged commission of said crime.

Upon a claim of surprise by defendant, he must make application for an adjournment. In the event such application is made and same is denied by the court, the denial of such adjournment would deprive the defendant of a substantial right. This the defendant did not do, but instead, merely took an exception to the court’s rule and continued his defense. The record does not disclose that the trial court failed to accede to any reasonable request of the defendant. Therefore, the plea of “ surprise ” cannot be considered as a basis for a new trial.

Judgment of conviction affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                        Special Emphasis Panel in Experimental & Integrative Activities (1193).                    

*Date & Time:*                         February 2, 2001, 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m.                    

*Place:*                        National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 1150 & 1105, Arlington, VA.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                        Closed.                    

*Contact Person:*                        Dr. Carl Smith, Research Experiences for Undergraduates, Experimental and Integrative Activities, Room 1160, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, VA 22230 Telephone: (703) 292-8980.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                        To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to the National Science Foundation for financial support.                    

*Agenda:*                        To review and evaluate CISE Research Experiences for Undergraduates proposals submitted in response to the program announcement (NSF 00-107).                    

*Reason for Closing:*                        The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: October 27, 2000.

Karen J. York,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-28408  Filed 11-3-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-1-M
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

 

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

 

I, Erin M. Rohde, certify that:

 

(a)                                 A review of the Servicer’s activities and of its performance under the applicable servicing agreement during the period from March 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 has been made under my supervision.

 

(b)                                 To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the applicable servicing agreement in all material respects throughout the aforementioned period.

 
| Dated March 21, 2016 |   |                                  |
|---------------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|                      |   |                                  |
|                      |   | /s/ Erin M. Rohde                     |
|                      |   | Erin M. Rohde                         |
|                      |   | Assistant Treasurer of                |
|                      |   | Ford Motor Credit Company LLC,        |
|                      |   | as Servicer of Ford Credit Auto Owner |
|                      |   | Trust 2015-A                          |

 

----
Exhibit 32.1 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

I, Terry McNew, Chief Executive Officer of MCBC Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge: 

 

|  | (1)The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

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

 

|               |   |   |   |                                                                |
|--------------------|--------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
| September 17, 2015 |   |   |   | /s/ Terry McNew                                                     |
|               |   |   |   | Terry McNew                                                         |
|               |   |   |   | President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) |

 

----
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Highwoods Realty Limited Partnership (the Operating Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Terry L. Stevens, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Highwoods Properties, Inc., general partner of the Operating Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | 1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Operating Partnership.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                            
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ TERRY L. STEVENS                                                        
|Terry L. Stevens                                                            
|Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the General Partner
|                                                                            
|January 19, 2005
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

QUINN WILLIAMS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 341 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 30th day of December, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
#### WILLIAMS v. STATE.

No. 25528.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 28, 1951.

James L. Cutcher, Childress, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Átty., Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted for the sale of intoxicating liquor in a . dry area and assessed a fine of $500.

The evidence amply sustains the conviction. The appellant did not testify and offered no evidence to contradict that presented by the state. The appeal presents only one -question by which reversal is sought.

The county attorney, in arguing the case to the jury, said: “If Ollie did not sell tüié whisky he would have gotten on this stand and told you that he didn’t sell it.” Objection -was timely made and the court instructed the jury not to consider the statement.

The argument was clearly in violation, of Art. 710, Code of- Criminal Procedure, and it has -frequently, been held that the instruction to not consider such statement cannot cure the error. See annotations under Footnote 41, Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P.

For the error in the argument the judgment of the trial court is reversed and is remanded.
Order entered January 26 , 2023

In The 

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

No. 05

- 22

- 00214

- CR

PHILIP KRAMER TAGGART , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 29 6th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 296

- 84192

- 2018

O RDER

Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file appellant’s brief is

GRANTED , and we ORDER the brief received with the motion filed as of the

date of this order.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE