alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
540 P.2d 148

#### The STATE of Arizona, Petitioner, v. Honorable Jack T. ARNOLD, Judge of the Superior Court of Pima County, Arizona, Respondent, Michael Lawrence NORMAN, Real Party in Interest.

No. 2 CA-CIV 1958.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2.

Sept. 17, 1975.

As Amended Oct. 30, 1975.

Dennis DeConcini, Pima County Atty. by Frank W. Frey, Deputy County Atty., Tucson, for petitioner.

Flynn, Kimerer, Thinnes, Derrick & Lindholm by John J. Flynn, Michael D. Kimerer and Clark L. Derrick, Phoenix, for respondent and real party in interest.

*530OPINION

HOWARD, Chief Judge.

This special action by the State questions the correctness of the respondent court’s ruling with respect to allowing the real party in interest to be released on bail pending the hearing on a petition to revoke his probation. It appearing that the trial court abused its discretion and the State has no remedy by appeal, we assume jurisdiction.

On June 6, 1973, Mr. Norman was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to five years’ probation. On August 5, 1975, a petition to revoke his probation was filed1 and a warrant for his arrest issued. On August 6 the initial hearing on the revocation petition was held and bail was set in the amount of $10,000.00. Pursuant to Norman’s request, the violation hearing was set beyond the time requirement of Rule 27.7(a), Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S. to November 11, 1975.

The State’s position is that Norman was not entitled to release on bail and we agree. Rule 27.6 provides that at the initial appearance of a probationer after his arrest, a release determination under Rule 7.2(b) shall be made.

Rule 7.2(b) provides for the right to release after conviction:

> “b. After Conviction. After a person has been convicted of any offense for which he has or may suffer a sentence of imprisonment, he shall not be released on bail or on his own recognizance unless it is established that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the conviction may be set aside on a motion for new trial, reversed on appeal, or vacated in any post-conviction proceeding. The release of a person pending appeal shall be revoked if he fails to prosecute his appeal diligently.”

The mandate of the rule is clear, i. e., no release on bail unless certain requirements are met. Norman had the burden of establishing that he satisfied those requirements. Rule 7.2(c). This he did not do and therefore the respondent court could not ignore the mandate of the rule. Therefore, Norman should not have been released on bail.

The order setting bond is vacated and the respondent court is directed to hold Norman without bond until disposition of the petition to revoke his probation.

HATHAWAY, J., concurs.

NOTE: Pursuant to stipulation in open court by counsel, this cause was submitted to and decided by two judges.

1

. The petition alleged failure to comply with conditions of probation in that Norman had been indicted for federal offenses.
<PAGE>   1



EXHIBIT 11.1 - STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         Three months ended                         Six months ended
                                                              June 30,                                  June 30,
                                                      1999                1998                  1999                1998
                                              -----------------------------------------  ---------------------------------------
       Basic:
<S>                                                        <C>                 <C>                  <C>                 <C>
Average shares outstanding                                 818,060             489,190              811,276             811,276

Net income                                    $            532,796   $         139,173   $        1,163,129  $          292,607

Per share amount                              $                .65   $             .28   $             1.43  $              .60


Diluted:

Average shares outstanding                                 818,060             489,190              811,276             489,190

Net effect of dilutive stock options                        23,745               3,270               23,745               3,270
                                              -----------------------------------------  ---------------------------------------

Diluted shares                                             841,805             492,460              835,021             492,460

Net income                                    $            532,796  $          139,173   $        1,163,129 $           292,607

Per share amount                              $                .63  $              .28   $             1.39 $               .59

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1
  Consent
    of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
   
  33-56289, 33-64317, 33-126173, 33-127939, 333-46615, 333-59790, 333-65822, 333-75539, 333-75541, 333-75543, 333-91613, 333-131408, 333-139213, 333-145998, 333-155554) Forms S-8 Form 10-K
  Fair Value Measurement, Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes: an Interpretation
    of FASB Statement No. 109, Employers Accounting for Defined Benefit
    Pension and Other Postretirement Plans, an amendment of FASB
    Statements No. 87, 88, 106, and 132(R),
    KPMG
    LLP
MEMORANDUM

TO: Boiler MACT Docket

Docket ID: EPA

‐ HQ

‐ OAR

‐ 2002

‐ 0058

FROM: Eastern Research Group, Inc.

DATE: December 2012

SUBJECT: OMB E.O. 12866 Meeting with CIBO, December 18, 2012

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) held an E.O. 12866 regulatory review with U.S.

EPA and the Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO) on December 18, 2012. The following

items were discussed during this meeting:

1. See attached file: CIBO

‐ OMB Meeting 12

‐ 18

‐ 12 Final.pdf

2. See attached file: final CIBO Boiler MACT HCl Analysis Dec 2012.pdf

3. See attached file: MATS CO Work Practice CIBO OMB.pdf

4. See attached file: PM CEMS CIBO OMB.pdf
# C_2015320EN.01002401.xml

| 28.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/24

---

Order of the President of the First Chamber of the Court of 11 June 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Eparkhiako Dikastirio Lefkosias — Cyprus) — Bogdan Chain v Atlanco LTD

(Case C-189/14) (1)

1

(2015/C 320/33)

Language of the case: Greek

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 202, 30.6.2014.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.01

February 26, 2010

The certification set forth below is
being submitted in connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 (the Report) of El Paso Electric Company (the Company) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or
Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

David W. Stevens and David G. Carpenter, each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



| | 1. | such Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act; and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



/s/ David W. StevensDavid W. StevensChief Executive Officer/s/ David G. CarpenterDavid G. CarpenterSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Regner I. Flores, Appellant.

[53 NYS3d 556]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Aloise, J.), rendered February 23, 2015, convicting him of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

*741Between March 2010 and November 2010, the defendant allegedly engaged in repeated acts of sexual contact with the 10-year-old son of his girlfriend, including acts of oral and anal sexual intercourse. After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; *People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see *People v Mateo,*2 NY3d 383 [2004]; *People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see *People v Romero,*7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant’s claims regarding the integrity of the grand jury proceedings, and that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel in connection with the grand jury proceedings, are based upon matters dehors the record and cannot be reviewed on this direct appeal from the judgment of conviction (see *People v English,*119 AD3d 706 [2014]; *People v Redmond,*41 AD3d 514, 515-516 [2007]; *People v Palmer,*29 AD3d 606 [2006]; *People v Sain,*261 AD2d 488 [1999]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see *People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Chambers and Cohen, JJ., concur.
No. 10-7240.

#### Larry Billian, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1059, 131 S. Ct. 686,

178 L. Ed. 2d 475,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9383.

November 29, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pau-peris denied. Petitioner is allowed until December 20, 2010, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.

Same case below, 383 Fed. Appx. 538.
No. 10-7107.

#### Moises E. Bure, Petitioner v. Bill McCollum, Attorney General of Florida, et al.

562 U.S. 1145, 131 S. Ct. 918,

178 L. Ed. 2d 766,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 413.

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
# C_2013336EN.01001101.xml

| 16.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 336/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 336/11

---

Appeal brought on 24 September 2013 by Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 11 July 2013 in Case T-197/12 Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

(Case C-509/13 P)

2013/C 336/23

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Metropolis Inmobiliarias y Restauraciones, SL (represented by: J. Carbonell Callicó, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), MIP Metro Group Intellectual Property GmbH & Co. KG

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The appellant claims that the Court of Justice should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 July 2013 in Case T-197/12 and, consequently, reject the application to register Community figurative mark No 7585045 METRO for services in Class 36; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) of 11 July 2013 in Case T-197/12 and, consequently, reject the application to register Community figurative mark No 7585045 METRO for services in Class 36;

| — | order the other parties to the proceedings to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the other parties to the proceedings to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

Grounds of appeal and main arguments

The appellant essentially raises three grounds of appeal against the judgment of the General Court referred to above.

First, the appellant accuses the General Court of having infringed Article 8(1)(b) of Community trade mark Regulation No 207/2009, (1) as a result of a misinterpretation of the services covered by the mark in conflict and a failure to assess the marks at issue as a whole.

1

Second, the General Court has delivered contradictory judgments in cases involving the same parties and in which similar marks were at issue. The judgment in Case T-284/11, which is very closely related to the present case, was not taken into account even though it was submitted in the proceedings in good time and in accordance with the procedure.

Third, the appellant submits that there were errors in the proceedings before the General Court which adversely affected its interests and which deprived it repeatedly of legal protection. In particular, the oral proceedings were carried out without the applicant, even though it had applied for them to be postponed for an important reason, and did so in accordance with the relevant procedure.

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statements contained in the body of the accompanying Registration
Statement and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001065423
<NAME> STEEL HEDDLE GROUP, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-03-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-26-1999
<CASH>                                             335
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,589
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (161)
<INVENTORY>                                     18,271
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                34,428
<PP&E>                                          46,329
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (8,715)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 193,899
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,260
<BONDS>                                        146,085
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,773
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   193,899
<SALES>                                         36,140
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                36,140
<CGS>                                           27,531
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   27,531
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,910
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,979
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,528)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,979)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,549)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,549)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
# C_2014085EN.01002101.xml

| 22.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 85/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 85/21

---

Action brought on 16 December 2013 — AENM v Parliament

(Case T-679/13)

2014/C 85/36

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Alliance of European National Movements (AENM) (Matzenheim, France) (represented by: J.-P. Le Moigne, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the European Parliament of 7 October 2013, partially repeated by the decision of 14 October 2013, and which fixed the definitive allowance granted by the European Parliament to the Alliance of European National Movements in respect of 2012 at EUR 186 292,12 and consequently decided that the Alliance of European National Movements must reimburse EUR 45 476,00 having regard to the fact that EUR 231 412,80 has already been allocated to the applicant association; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the European Parliament of 7 October 2013, partially repeated by the decision of 14 October 2013, and which fixed the definitive allowance granted by the European Parliament to the Alliance of European National Movements in respect of 2012 at EUR 186 292,12 and consequently decided that the Alliance of European National Movements must reimburse EUR 45 476,00 having regard to the fact that EUR 231 412,80 has already been allocated to the applicant association;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay all the costs and to pay on that basis a sum of EUR 20 000,00 to the Alliance of European National Movements. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay all the costs and to pay on that basis a sum of EUR 20 000,00 to the Alliance of European National Movements.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law which are essentially identical or similar to those it relies on in Case T-678/13 AENM v Parliament.

AENM

Parliament

---
No. 10-7739.

#### Jeremiah Mungo and Lamont A. Peete, Petitioners v. United States.

562 U.S. 1160, 131 S. Ct. 964,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 20,

178 L. Ed. 2d 793,

January 10, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals denied.

Same case below, 987 A.2d 1145.
No. 10-7408.

#### Patrick Duray Portley-El, Petitioner v. Hoyt Brill, Warden, et al.

562 U.S. 1115, 131 S. Ct. 838,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9780.

178 L. Ed. 2d 569,

December 13, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 380 Fed. Appx. 744.
I started 

using e-cigarettes 

but kept smoking. 

Right up until 

my lung collapsed.

Kristy, age 35, Tennessee

Kristy had smoker’s cough and severe 

shortness of breath. She tried using 

e-cigarettes to cut down on her smoking.

She thought cutting down would make

her feel better, but it didn’t. She kept

smoking cigarettes until her lung collapsed.

Even smoking a few cigarettes 

a day is dangerous.

You can quit smoking.

CALL 1-800-QUIT-NOW.

#CDCTips
No. 10-6010.

#### James R. Walker, Petitioner v. Nevada.

562 U.S. 1066, 131 S. Ct. 645,

178 L. Ed. 2d 487,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9075.

November 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nevada denied.

Same case below, 126 Nev. 766.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of AmerInst Insurance Group, Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Murray Nicol, Vice President and chief financial officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18.U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 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 Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                          
|------------------------------------------
|/s/ MURRAY NICOL                          
|Murray Nicol                              
|Vice President and chief financial officer
|August 13, 2004
SUY NGH - THỬ NGHIỆM - CHỮA TR LAO PHỐI

 

Thử Nghiệm và Chữa Trị 

Bệnh Lao Phổi Không Hoạt Động

Gần 13 triệu người tại Hoa Kỳ có thể đã nhiễm Lao Phổi không hoạt động (hay còn gọi là Nhiễm Lao tiềm ẩn).

Nếu không được chữa trị, 1 trong 10 người nhiễm Lao Phổi không hoạt động sẽ chuyển thành bệnh Lao Phổi,

trở bệnh, và có khả năng truyền bệnh Lao Phổi cho người khác qua đường không khí.

Quý vị có thể chung tay ngăn chăn sự lây lan của bệnh Lao Phổi.

1 Suy nghĩ Liệu tôi có nguy cơ bị nhiễm Lao Phổi?

Hãy trao đổi với bác sĩ về thử nghiệm nếu quý vị:

sinh ra hoặc thường

xuyên đi đến các

quốc gia có nhiều người

mắc bệnh lao phổi,

gồm có các quốc gia tại

Á Châu, Phi Châu,

và Mỹ La-tinh

gần đây có tiếp xúc với 

người nhiễm bệnh lao phổi

có hệ miễn dịch yếu vì một

số loại thuốc hoặc các

bệnh nhất định, như bệnh

tiểu đường, ung thư,

và HIV

đang hoặc đã sống trong các

khu tập thể nơi bệnh lao phổi

thường xuyên xảy ra, ví dụ như

nhà cho người vô gia cư,

hoặc nhà tù

Cho dù quý vị đã tiêm vắc-xin ngừa bệnh Lao Phổi, còn gọi

là vắc-xin BCG (Bacille Calmette-Guérin), quý vị vẫn nên

thử nghiệm vì vắc-xin sẽ giảm tác dụng theo thời gian. 

làm việc tại những nơi có nguy cơ lây

nhiễm lao phổi cao,

như nhà cho người vô gia cư,

trung tâm cải huấn, và nhà dưỡng lão

2 Thửnghiệm

Tôi cần được thử nghiệm 

lao phổi bằng cách nào?

Hiện có 2 loại thử nghiệm để kiểm tra 

nhiễm khuẩn lao: qua máu và qua da. 

Thử nghiệm qua máu được khuyên 

dùng cho người đã tiêm vắc-xin ngừa 

bệnh lao phổi (vắc-xin BCG). Hãy tham khảo với 

bác sĩ để chọn loại thử nghiệm phù hợp nhất với quý vị.

3 Chữa trị

Hiện có những phương 

pháp chữa trị nào?

Chữa trị Lao Phổi không hoạt động là cách 

tốt nhất để quý vị bảo vệ bản thân khỏi 

tiến triển sang bệnh Lao Phổi. Nếu có 

thể, CDC khuyến khích sử dụng các 

phương pháp điều trị có thời gian 

ngắn và thuận tiện trong 3 hoặc 4 

tháng, sử dụng thuốc rifamycin để 

điều trị Lao Phổi không hoạt động.

Để tìm hiểu thêm về bệnh Lao Phổi và cách để bảo vệ bản thân và người khác,

xin vào www.cdc.gov/thinktesttreattb 

301103
No. 10-6436.

#### Brian L. McDaniel, Petitioner v. Missouri.

562 U.S. 1047, 131 S. Ct. 605,

178 L. Ed. 2d 441,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8905.

November 15, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.