alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
409 P.2d 54

#### In the Matter of the ESTATE of Willard J. MILLIMAN, Deceased. FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP, Appellant, v. Neil J. WARD, Administrator de bonis non of the Estate of Willard J. Milliman, deceased, and Ciarabelle Milliman, et al., Appellees.

No. 2 CA-CIV 79.

Court of Appeals of Arizona.

Dec. 17, 1965.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 3, 1965.

Review Granted Feb. 1, 1966.

Chandler, Tullar, Udall & Richmond, by D. B. Udall, Tucson, for appellant.

Rees, Estes & Browning, by Donald Estes, Tucson, for appellees.

MOLLOY, Judge.

The motion for rehearing by appellant, Farmers Insurance Group, challenges the statement made in this court’s opinión heretofore rendered that Farmers Insurance did not petition the lower court for the return of the monies paid to the two children of Lucy Milliman as part of the settlement of the death claim and that neither Lucy nor her two children were given any notice of the petition to set aside the settlement order.

We believe that the appellant is partially correct in its contentions and therefore modify this portion of the opinión (the paragraph immediately preceding the announcement of the affirmance of the decision) to read as follows:

> “But even if our law should be otherwise, Farmers Insurance Group did not bring the matter of the return of these funds to it properly before the court. It is very obvious that the two children of Lucy Milliman liave an interest in these funds which could not be taken away from them by a court without giving notice to the thildren and an opportunity to be heard. Laz v. Southwestern Land Company, 97 Ariz. 69, 397 P.2d 52 (1964). There was no petition filed in the lower court for the return of these funds. In a legal memorandum filed by Farmers Insurance in opposition to the petition to set aside the order of settlement it stated its ‘position’ in four parts, and one of these (the third) states that the court should not set aside the order approving the settlement unless the monies paid to the children were returned to it. It does not appear that this memorandum was served upon the children, through their guardian, or that they were notified in any way of this ‘position.’ Under these circumstances, this court holds that the trial court would not have been acting within basic due process concepts if it had ordered this money taken from the two *339minor children and returned to Farmers Insurance Group.”

Except as herein modified, the opinion heretofore issued is reaffirmed and the petition for rehearing denied.

KRUCKER, C. J., and HATHAWAY, J., concur.
No. 09-1030.

#### Sherri Koehnke, Petitioner v. City of McKeesport, Pennsylvania, et al.

559 U.S. 1107, 130 S. Ct. 2404,

176 L. Ed. 2d 924,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3804.

May 3, 2010.

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 350 Fed. Appx. 720.
No. 09-8438.

#### Juan Vasquez-Rosales, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 956, 130 S. Ct. 1552,

176 L. Ed. 2d 142,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1144.

February 22, 2010.

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

Same case below, 573 F.3d 865.
From: Zekovich, Alex

To: Kordzi, Joe

Subject: RE: Tolk cooling system converison study

Date: Thursday, September 17, 2015 9:43:33 AM

Hi Joe:

Was wondering if you found the indirect dry cooling information useful, or if you have any questions.

One thing I was going to note. The indirect dry cooling system would be somewhat of a fungible

 asset (at least related to Tolk). Whenever the coal plant will be retired in the future, Xcel will likely

 repower the 1GW coal plant with a CCPP. The indirect dry system in the study could then serve as a

 100% dry heatsink for a 2GW CCPP repowering.

From: Kordzi, Joe [mailto:Kordzi.Joe@epa.gov] 

Sent: Friday, August 28, 2015 7:34 AM

To: Gregasz, Attila <attila.gregasz@gea.com>

Cc: Zekovich, Alex <Alex.Zekovich@gea.com>; Cusick, Sean <Sean.Cusick@gea.com>

Subject: RE: Tolk cooling system converison study

Thanks. As we discussed, I’ll include the redacted version in our docket and I’ll treat the nonredacted according to our CBI requirements. Also, I’ll delete the non-redacted version from our

 email system.

From: Gregasz, Attila [mailto:attila.gregasz@gea.com] 

Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 12:42 PM

To: Kordzi, Joe

Cc: Zekovich, Alex; Cusick, Sean

Subject: Tolk cooling system converison study

Hello Joe,

Referring to the telephone conversation with Sean and Alex today, I hereby would like to send you

 the redacted and unredacted version of the above mentioned cooling system conversion study for

 your reference.

Please bear in mind that the price numbers were based on 2012 price level and contains

 assumptions to a certain extent.

Best regards,

Attila Gregasz

Business Development Manager

GEA EGI Contracting/Engineering Co. Ltd.
Phone +36 1 225 6199, Fax +36 1 225 6193

Mobile +36 30 632 1339

attila.gregasz@gea.com

www.brand-change.com

emailsignatur

4-20 Irinyi J. Str, Science Park, Bldg."B", Budapest, H-1117, Hungary; Postal Address: P.O. Box 192, Budapest, H-1507, Hungary

Registered Office: Budapest; Court of Registration: Budapest Metropolitan Court, Cg. 01-10-041888

Executive Board: András Balogh (President & CEO), László Ludvig, Tamás Lelkes, János Hangyál

Confidentiality note

This e-mail, including any attachment, may contain confidential and privileged information. If you have received it by mistake, please

 notify us by reply e-mail and then delete this e-mail and any attachment from your system. Thank you!
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-50535

Summary Calendar

Cons. w/16-50536

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JASON C. MCCLURE,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 1:12-CR-217-1

USDC No. 1:12-CR-443-1

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jason C. McClure appeals his below guidelines sentence for conspiring 

to possess with intent to distribute methylone, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§§ 841(a)(1) & (b)(1)(C), 846. Because methylone is not specifically referenced 

in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c), in calculating the guidelines range, the district court 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 27, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-50535 Document: 00514090995 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/27/2017
No. 16-50535

c/w No. 16-50536

2

determined that MDMA was the most closely related controlled substance and

therefore applied MDMA’s 500:1 drug equivalency ratio. On appeal, McClure

contends that the district court did not recognize its authority to reject the

500:1 ratio and vary below the calculated guidelines range on that basis.

Although McClure objected to the court’s use of the 500:1 ratio, he did 

not object to the district court’s explanation for denying his objection or 

otherwise suggest that the court had failed to recognize its discretion to grant 

a variance on that specific basis. Therefore, we review the forfeited objection 

under the plain error standard. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129, 135 

(2009). To satisfy that standard, McClure must show an error that is “clear or 

obvious” and that “affects his substantial rights.” See id. (internal quotation 

omitted). If he makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct 

the error but only if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public 

reputation of judicial proceedings. See id. 

Contrary to McClure’s interpretation of the court’s comments at 

sentencing, the record does not reflect that the district court misunderstood its 

authority to vary below the guidelines range if it disagreed with the 500:1 drug 

ratio. Instead, it shows that the court found the argument for applying a lower 

ratio to be “weak;” the court made an individualized determination of the 

sentencing factors and varied below the guidelines range for other reasons. 

McClure has therefore failed to show that the court committed any clear or 

obvious error.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 16-50535 Document: 00514090995 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/27/2017
No. 09-580.

#### Harley D. Zephier, Sr., et al., Petitioners v. United States, et al.

559 U.S. 1067, 130 S. Ct. 2090,

176 L. Ed. 2d 722,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3406.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied.

Same case below, 559 F.3d 1228.
No. 09-9723.

#### Jose Luis Rodriguez-Mena, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1099, 130 S. Ct. 2388,

176 L. Ed. 2d 780,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3598.

April 26, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 32(a)**CERTIFICATION**     In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K (the “Report”) ofLindsay Corporation (the “Company”) for the year ended August 31, 2007, I, Richard W.Parod, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and I, David B. Downing, Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofthe Company.              /s/ Richard W. Parod   President and Chief Executive Officer   Richard W. Parod            /s/ David B. Downing   Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer   David B. Downing   November 12, 2007        A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
89
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 10, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 10264]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5035]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[WY-923-1310-FI; WYW173883]


Wyoming: Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and 
Gas Lease

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of proposed reinstatement of terminated oil and gas 
lease.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 
3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a 
petition for reinstatement from Kodiak Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., and O'Neal 
Resources Corporation for Competitive oil and gas lease WYW173883 for 
land in Sweetwater County, Wyoming. The petition was filed on time and 
was accompanied by all the rentals due since the date the lease 
terminated under the law.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, Julie L. 
Weaver, Acting Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at (307) 
775-6176.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The lessees have agreed to the amended lease 
terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre, or 
fraction thereof, per year and 16\2/3\ percent, respectively. The 
lessees have paid the required $500 administrative fee and $163 to 
reimburse the Department for the cost of this Federal Register notice. 
The lessees have met all the requirements for reinstatement of the 
lease as set out in Sections 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing 
Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is 
proposing to reinstate lease WYW173883 effective August 1, 2008, under 
the original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental 
and royalty rates cited above. BLM has not issued a valid lease 
affecting the lands.

Julie L. Weaver,
Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication.
 [FR Doc. E9-5035 Filed 3-9-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
In the MATTER OF: E.W.P.

No. 405P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 27, 2019

James Ryan Grant, Assistant Appellate Defender, E. W. P., for E.W.P.

Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender

Robert T. Broughton, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 15th of November 2018 by Respondent in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th of March 2019."
No. 09-8837.

#### Ronald Anderson, Petitioner v. Barry McClemore, Warden.

559 U.S. 1040, 130 S. Ct. 2069,

176 L. Ed. 2d 420,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2877.

March 29, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
No. 10-769.

#### Monica Maria Skrzypczak, Petitioner v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Tulsa, et al.

565 U.S. 1155, 132 S. Ct. 1088,

181 L. Ed. 2d 976,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 780.

January 17, 2012.

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

Same case below, 611 F.3d 1238.
410 P.2d 681

#### ARIZONA SERVICE COMPANY, a bankrupt Arizona Corporation, Ben Pasqualetti, Jr., and William J. Snow dba Suburban Sanitation Service, Appellants, v. The ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION and Jack Buzard, E. T. Williams, Jr., and John P. Clark as members thereof, Appellees.

No. 1 CA-CIV 102.

Court of Appeals of Arizona.

Jan. 28, 1966.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 24, 1966.

Review Denied March 22, 1966.

Fennemore, Craig, Allen & McClennen, by Calvin H. Udall, Phoenix, for appellants.

Darrell F. Smith, Atty. Gen., Phoenix, by Sidney M. Rosen, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees.

CAMERON, Judge.

This is a companion case to Cochise Sanitary Services v. Corporation Commission, 2 Ariz.App. 559, 410 P.2d *677*(1966) filed this date.

Appellants, Arizona Service Company and Suburban Sanitation Service, filed an action in the Superior. Court to review the order of the Corporation Commission of Arizona cancelling their certificates of convenience and necessity. The trial court granted the Corporation Commission’s motion to dismiss, based upon the decision in Visco v. State ex rel. Pickrell, 95 Ariz. 154, 388 P.2d 155 (1963) and appellants appeal.

Both appellants had certificates of convenience and necessity for the transportation of trash, refuse and garbage. Our opinion in Cochise Sanitary Service v. Corporation Commission, supra, is applicable and the reader is referred to that opinion for the Court’s reasoning.

Appellants also contend that to strip them of their status as certificated common carriers and public service corporations after they have made extensive investments in their businesses and to subject them to destructive competition deprived them of their property without due process and denied them equal protection under the laws, in violation of both Federal and Arizona Constitutions. We would point out that appellants had their day before the Commission, at a regularly noticed hearing, and that they were heard in the court below. The Corporation Commission, after the Visco v. State ex rel. Pickrell decision, supra, had no choice but to cancel said certificates. We do not feel that the Commission, in cancelling and revoking a certificate that our Supreme Court has found the Commission had no authority to grant in the first place, deprived the appellants of equal pro*564tection under the law or deprived them of their property without due process.

For that reason, the decision of the lower court is affirmed.

STEVENS, C. J., and DONOFRIO, J., concur.
No. 09-8165.

#### Alonza Hall, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 951, 130 S. Ct. 1534,

176 L. Ed. 2d 132,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1469.

February 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
No. 09-799.

#### Eric L. Davies, et ux., Petitioners v. David T. Moysa, et ux.; and Eric L. Davies, et ux., Petitioners v. Philip Doi, Judge, District Court of Hawaii, First Circuit, et al.

559 U.S. 1068, 130 S. Ct. 2095,

176 L. Ed. 2d 723,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3469.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the Supreme Court of Hawaii denied.

Same case below, 121 Haw. 461, 220 P.3d 1042 (first judgment).
CAUSE NO. D -1-GN- 13

- 000241

DEYDRA STEANS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT

Petitioner §

§

V. § OF TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS

§

MANOR INDEPENDENT §

SCHOOL DISTRICT §

Defendant §

§

§ 200th JUDICIAL

DISTRICT

APPELLEE’S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO

APPELLANT’S MOTION TO STAY

Appellee Deydra Steans asks the court to extend the time to file her brief.

A. Introduction

1. Appellant is Manor Independent School District.

2. Appellee is Deydra Steans.

3. The deadline to file this response is May 26, 2015.

4. The parties have agreed to this motion.

B. Argument and Authorities

5. The Court has authority under TRAP 55.7 and 10.5 to extend the time to file

the brief.

6. Appellee requests an additional 30 days to file her brief.

7. No extension has been granted to extend the time to file Appellee’s brief. ACCEPTED

03-15-00294-CV

5431844

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

5/27/2015 12:12:05 PM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK8. Appellant needs additional time because the parties have engaged in

settlement ne gotiations and the parties believe the matter has settled. A

preliminary mediator proposal has been approved by both sides and the

parties are attempting to finalize a settlement agreement.

C. Conclusion

9. Because the parties have resolved the matter and need time to finalize a

settlement it is necessary to extend the time for the response to the

outstanding motion.

D. Prayer

10. For these reasons Appellee asks the Court to grant an extension of time to file

her brief until June 26 th , 2015.

Respectfully subm itted,

POTTER BLEDSOE, LLP

By: /s/ Gary L. Bledsoe

Gary L. Bledsoe

State Bar No. 02476500

gbledsoe@potterble dsoe.com

Harry G. Potter III

hpotter@potterbledsoe.com

State Bar No. 16175300

Alondra Johnson

ajohnson@potterbledsoe.com

State Bar No. 24087801

316 W. 12 th Street

Austin, Texas 78701

(512) 322

- 9992 Telephone

(512) 322

- 0840 FaxCERTIFICATE OF CONFE RENCE

I certify that I have conferred with Jennifer Powell by telephone and e

- mail

and she has agreed and is unopposed to Appelle e ’ s Motion to Extend Time to File A

Response to Appellant ’ s Motion to Stay

.

/s/ Gary L. Bledsoe

Gary Bledsoe

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument has

been forwarded to the following parties via e

- mail/e

- service, United States certified

mai l and/or via facsimile on this 26 th day of May 2015.

Jennifer A. Powell

Eichelbaum, Wardell, Hansen, Powell & Mehl, P.C.

4201 Parmer Lane, Suite A100

Austin, Texas 78727

512/476

- 9944

512/472

- 2599 fax

jpowell@edlaw.com

cc: nbn@edlaw.com

Attorneys for Defendant

/s/ Gary L. Bledsoe

Gary Bledsoe
# C_2017099EN.01000501.xml

| 30.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 99/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 99/5

---

Special Report No 3/2017

‘EU Assistance to Tunisia’

(2017/C 99/04)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 3/2017 ‘EU Assistance to Tunisia’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu or on EU Bookshop: https://bookshop.europa.eu

---
No. 09-9483.

#### Jerome Julius Brown, Petitioner v. Industrial Bank, et al.

560 U.S. 908, 130 S. Ct. 3280,

176 L. Ed. 2d 1190,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3947,

May 17, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 32.2

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Graphco Holdings Corp. (the
Company) on Form  10-QSB/A  for the  quarter  ended June 30, 2003 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),  I, Rodger Wichterman,  Chief
Financial  Officer,  certify  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 requirements 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 consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the
dates  presented  and  consolidated  result of operations of the Company for the
period presented.

Dated: September 15, 2003

                                                   /s/ Rodger Wichterman
                                                   ----------------------------
                                                   Rodger Wichterman
No. 09-9755.

#### Donald Barton Deshotels, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1085, 130 S. Ct. 2135,

176 L. Ed. 2d 754,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3235.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 356 Fed. Appx. 960.
-86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72 -70

 34

 36

 38

 40

 42

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 500

18 12 06 00

05/31

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 31 May 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 39.44 N 77.04 W Meters AGL
No. 09-8913.

#### Vouty Thol, Petitioner v. Dan Pacholke, Superintendent, Stafford Creek Corrections Center.

559 U.S. 1017, 130 S. Ct. 1909,

176 L. Ed. 2d 384,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2349.

March 22, 2010.

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

Same case below, 344 Fed. Appx. 452.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1300
NIKOLA T. GUENOV, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals. (A79-326-378) Submitted: February 21, 2008 Decided: March 17, 2008 Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gayton J. Thomas, Jr., B altimore, Maryland, for Petitioner. Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Michelle Gorden Latour, Assistant Director, Hannah B. Baublitz, OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Nikola T. Guenov, a native and citizen of Bulgaria, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) adopting and affirming the Immigration Judge’s decision finding that Guenov abandoned his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture. We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and affirm the denial of relief for the reasons stated by the Board. See In Re: Guenov , No. A79-326-378 (B.I.A. Mar. 16, 2007). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED