alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Process to review complaints concerning access and use of data by U.S.

intelligence agencies in signals intelligence acƟviƟes.  

NaƟonal Security Redress Mechanism 

Civil LiberƟes ProtecƟon Officer (CLPO) 

More about the CLPO’s Office at DNI.gov/CLPT

See ExecuƟve Order 14086 §§ 3, 4(d), and 4(k), Intelligence Community DirecƟve 126, 

and 28 CFR Part 201. 

DATA PRIVACY FRAMEWORK
What is a National Security Qualifying Complaint? 

Individual’s idenƟty.

ViolaƟon:

Occurred aŌer 7 October 2022 (the date EO 14086 was signed); and

Concerns data reasonably believed to have been transferred to the U.S.

from the qualifying state aŌer the effecƟve date of the AƩorney General’s

designaƟon.

ViolaƟon is about an individual’s personal data.

Complaint is submiƩed by the individual or brought on behalf of the

individual.  

Complaint is not submiƩed as a representaƟve of a government,

nongovernmental, or intergovernmental organizaƟon.

Alleges a violaƟon that:

Adversely affects complainant’s individual privacy and civil liberƟes

interests; and

Violates U.S. laws, orders, or procedures specified in EO 14086 § 4(d)(iii).

Provides basic informaƟon to enable a review:

The basis for the complaint* and relief sought;

Specific means (such as an email address or phone number) the data was

believed to have been transferred to the U.S;

U.S. Government enƟƟes believed to be involved (if known); and  

Other measures the complainant pursued to obtain relief and the

responses.  

Complaint is in good faith and not frivolous or vexaƟous.

ExecuƟve Order (EO) 14086 SecƟon 3 establishes a redress mechanism to review

“qualifying complaints” transmiƩed by the appropriate Public Authority in a

qualifying state.  

Before transmiƫng a complaint, the Public Authority must verify the following to

show the complaint is a qualifying complaint:

*Complaint need not demonstrate that the individual’s data was in fact

subject to U.S. signals intelligence acƟviƟes.

Civil LiberƟes ProtecƟon Officer (CLPO) 

More about the CLPO’s Office at DNI.gov/CLPT

DATA PRIVACY FRAMEWORK
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Bryan Seth Williams, Appellant

No. 06-21-00024-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 188th District Court of 

Gregg County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 48328-

A). Memorandum Opinion delivered by 

Justice Stevens, Chief Justice Morriss and 

Justice van Cleef participating. 

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the 

judgment of the court below. Therefore, we modify the bill of costs and judgment by deleting 

the time payment fee and to reflect that the amount of court costs owed is $224.00. As modified, 

the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

We note that the appellant, Bryan Seth Williams, has adequately indicated his inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED JUNE 7, 2022

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
No. 09-8560.

#### Derrick McKinney, Petitioner v. John A. Palakovich, Superintendent, State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, et al.

559 U.S. 1012, 130 S. Ct. 1891,

176 L. Ed. 2d 374,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2700.

March 22, 2010.

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

Same case below, 348 Fed. Appx. 711.
Exhibit 21
 Subsidiaries of Registrant
 Name of Company
    
    Jurisdiction of IncorporationSynergetics, Inc.
    
    MissouriSynergetics IP, Inc.
    
    DelawareSynergetics Delaware, Inc.
    
    DelawareSynergetics Development Company, L.L.C.
(Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Synergetics, Inc.)
    
    MissouriMedimold, L.L.C. 
(Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Synergetics, Inc.)
    
    MissouriSynergetics Germany GmbH
    
    GermanySynergetics Italia, Srl
    
    ItalySynergetics Surgical Australia PTY, Ltd.
    
    AustraliaSynergetics France, SARL
    
    France
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

BAIYWO ROP,

Appellant,

v.

Case No. 5D21-1490 

LT Case No. 2017-CA-009484-O 

ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM D/B/A 

FLORIDA HOSPITAL, 

Appellee. 

________________________________/ 

Decision filed August 23, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Orange County, 

Kevin B. Weiss, Judge. 

Jerry Girley, of The Girley Law 

Firm, P.A., Orlando, for Appellant. 

Kimberly J. Doud and Jeffrey B. Jones, 

of Littler Mendelson, P.C., Orlando, for 

Appellee.

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED.

TRAVER, NARDELLA and WOZNIAK, JJ., concur.
No. 09-8906.

#### Claudio Millan, Petitioner v. Southern California Edison Company.

559 U.S. 1117, 130 S. Ct. 2431,

176 L. Ed. 2d 944,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3760.

May 3, 2010.

Petition for rehearing denied.

*945Former decision, 559 U.S. 1017, 130 S. Ct. 1908, 176 L. Ed. 2d 383, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 2551.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kenneth Mojica, Appellant.

[719 NYS2d 608]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lipp, J.), rendered July 8, 1997, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial was abridged when the court asked certain members of the defendant’s family to leave the courtroom during the first round of jury selection, to permit prospective jurors to be seated. The defendant’s present contentions were not *592raised before the Court and thus are unpreserved for appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Quezada,*218 AD2d 819). In any event, the court providently exercised its discretion in light of the limited seating within the courtroom *(see, People v Valentin,*250 AD2d 497).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Friedmann and Smith, JJ., concur.
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE

LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA
, R e spondent
,

v.

JEFFREY ROBERT CAVANESS
, P e titioner

.
N o . 1 CA

- CR 13

- 0380 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. C R2003

- 016418

- 002 The Honorable Cynthia Bailey
, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELI EF DENIED

COUNSEL
Maricopa County Attorney’s Office , Phoenix By Diane Meloche Counsel for Respondent

Jeffrey Robert Cavaness, Florence P e titionerSTATE v. CAVANESS Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Andrew W. Gould delivered the decision of the C ourt , in which Presiding Judge Margaret H. Downie and Judge Samuel A. Thumma joined.

G O U L D, Judge :

¶1 Petitioner , Jeffrey Robert Cavaness
, petitions this court for review from the dismissal of his petition for post

- conviction relief. We have considered the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review and deny relief.

¶2 Cavaness pled guilty to drive

- by shooting and two counts of aggravated assault and the tria l court sentenced him to an aggregate term of eighteen years' imprisonment. Cavaness now seeks review of the summary dismissal of his third successive petition for post

- conviction relief. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.9(c).

¶3 We deny relief. Cavaness's third petition for post

- conviction relief is identical to his second petition for post

- conviction relief, which the trial court dismissed in January 2010. The only diff erence is that Cavaness includes one additional exhibit in this latest petition. That exhibit is a copy of a pro se motion for " re

- hearing " that Cavaness filed in February 2010 when he sought reconsideration of his second petition

. Any claim a defendant raised in an earlier post

- conviction relief proceeding is preclu ded. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a). None of the exceptions under Rule 32.2(b) apply. While these are not the grounds upon which the trial court dismissed the third petition, we may affirm a decision of a trial court on any basis supported by the record. St ate v. Robinson, 153 Ariz. 191, 199, 735 P.2d 801, 809 (1987).

¶4 Further, w hile the petition for review presents additional issues, Cavaness did not raise those issues in the petition for post

conviction relief he filed below. A petition for review may not present issues not first presented to the trial court. State v. Ramirez , 126 Ariz. 464, 467, 616 P.2d 924, 927 (App. 1980); State v. Wagstaff , 161 Ariz. 66, 71, 775 P.2d 1130, 1135 (App. 1988); State v. Bortz , 169 Ariz. 575, 577, 821 P.2d 236, 238 (App. 1 991); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii).STATE v. CAVANESS Decision of the Court

3 ¶5 We grant review and deny relief.
In the MATTER OF Howard B. HAMMER, Petitioner.

Appellate Case No. 2017-001062

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

June 3, 2019

**14ORDER

By opinion dated March 30, 2016, this Court suspended Petitioner from the practice of law for one year. *In re Hammer* , 415 S.C. 610, 784 S.E.2d 678 (2016). Petitioner filed a petition for reinstatement pursuant to Rule 33, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. After referral, the Committee on Character and Fitness filed a report and recommendation recommending the Court reinstate Petitioner to the practice of law. We find petitioner has met the requirements of Rule 33(f), RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR. Accordingly, we grant the petition for reinstatement.

**15*s/Donald W. Beatty*, C.J.

*s/John W. Kittredge*, J.

*s/Kaye G. Hearn*, J.

*s/George C. James, Jr.*, J.

I would deny the petition for reinstatement.

*s/ John Cannon Few*, J.
Virginia BUKOVAC, Respondent, v. KANSAS CITY LIVE, LLC, Appellant.

WD 80503

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

ORDER FILED: March 13, 2018

John E. Turner, Christopher P. Sweeny, and Marty W. Seaton, Kansas City, MO, Attorneys for Respondent.

Michelle R. Stewart, Overland Park, KS, Attorney for Appellant.

Before Division IV: Mark D. Pfeiffer, Chief Judge, and Cynthia L. Martin and Gary D. Witt, Judges

**Order**

Per Curiam:

Kansas City Live, LLC appeals from the judgment of the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, awarding Ms. Virginia Bukovac damages for personal injuries she sustained as a result of a fall she sustained due to a defect in the condition of a sidewalk. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum of law has been provided to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM GRANITE
BROADCASTING CORPORATION'S 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         555,753
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               27,057,451
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            43,674,830
<PP&E>                                      33,562,019
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             452,563,204
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       24,164,241
<BONDS>                                    351,560,900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       45,487,500
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        86,782
<OTHER-SE>                                 (3,221,919)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               452,563,204
<SALES>                                    129,164,353
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           129,164,353
<CGS>                                       72,089,368
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               95,353,139
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,029,370
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          37,114,336
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,133,462)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   761,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,894,462)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            (2,891,250)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (8,785,712)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.43)
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 10, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 10339]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5072]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6541]


Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy; Notice of 
Committee Renewal

    Renewal of Advisory Committee. The Department of State has renewed 
the Charter of the Advisory Committee on International Economic Policy. 
The Committee serves in a solely advisory capacity concerning major 
issues and problems in international economic policy. The Committee 
provides information and advice on the effective integration of 
economic interests into overall foreign policy and on the Department of 
State's role in advancing American commercial interests in a 
competitive global economy. The Committee also appraises the role and 
limits of international economic institutions and advises on the 
formulation of U.S. economic policy and positions.
    This Committee includes representatives of American organizations 
and institutions having an interest in international economic policy, 
including representatives of American business, labor unions, public 
interest groups, and trade and professional associations. The Committee 
meets at least annually to advise the Department on the full range of 
international economic policies and issues.
    For further information, please call Nancy Smith-Nissley, Senior 
Coordinator, Office of Economic Policy Analysis and Public Diplomacy, 
Economic, Energy and Business Affairs Bureau, U.S. Department of State, 
at (202) 647-1682.

    March 2, 2009.
Sandra Clark,
Director, Office of Economic Policy Analysis and Public Diplomacy, 
Bureau of Economic, Energy and Business Affairs, Department of State.
 [FR Doc. E9-5072 Filed 3-9-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-07-P
L1 ANSWER 1 OF 1 REGISTRY COPYRIGHT 2011 ACS on STN RN 116018-07-6 REGISTRY ED Entered STN: 27 Aug 1988 CN Propane, 1,1,1,2,2,3,3-heptafluoro-3-[(1,2,2-trifluoroethe nyl)oxy]-, polymer with 1-chloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethene and 1,1,2,2-te trafluoroethene (CA INDEX NAME) OTHER CA INDEX NAMES: CN Ethene, chlorotrifluoro-, polymer with 1,1,1,2,2,3,3-heptafluoro-3-[(trifluoroethenyl)oxy]propane and tetrafluoroethene (9CI) CN Ethene, tetrafluoro-, polymer with chlorotrifluoroethene a nd 1,1,1,2,2,3,3-heptafluoro-3-[(trifluoroethenyl)oxy]propane (9CI) CN Propane, 1,1,1,2,2,3,3-heptafluoro-3-[(trifluoroethenyl)ox y]-, polymer with chlorotrifluoroethene and tetrafluoroethene (9CI) OTHER NAMES: CN Chlorotrifluoroethylene-per fluoro(propyl vinyl ether)-tetr afluoroethylene copolymer CN Chlorotrifluoroethylene-tetrafluoroethylene-perfluoro(prop yl vinyl ether) copolymer MF (C5 F10 O . C2 Cl F3 . C2 F4)x CI PMS PCT Fluoropolymer, Polyvinyl SR CA LC STN Files: CA, CAPLUS, CHEMLIST, USPAT2, USPATFULL

CM 1

CRN 1623-05-8 CMF C5 F10 O

CF 2 CF 2 CF 3 F CF 2 O C

CM 2

CRN 116-14-3 CMF C2 F4

F F F F C

C 

# CBICM 3

CRN 79-38-9 CMF C2 Cl F3

F CF 2 Cl C

27 REFERENCES IN FILE CA (1907 TO DATE) 4 REFERENCES TO NON-SPECIFIC DERIVATIVES IN FILE CA 27 REFERENCES IN F ILE CAPLUS (1907 TO DATE)

=> log y COST IN JAPANESE YEN SINCE FILE TOTAL ENTRY SESSION FULL ESTIMATED COST 328 357

STN INTERNATIONAL LOGOFF AT 11:31:47 ON 19 JUL 2011
IN RE: ENTZMINGER

317P19-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 15, 2019

David R. Johnson, Deputy Counsel, for NC State Bar.

M. Gordon Widenhouse, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Entzminger, Phillip.

Katherine Jean, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for NC State Bar.

Kimberly S. Robb, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th of August 2019 by Respondent for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of August 2019."
STATE v. Napier Sandford FULLER

378P18-3

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2019

Napier Sandford Fuller, For Fuller, Napier Sandford

Peter A. Regulski, Mary Carla Babb, Assistant Attorneys General, Blake M. Courlang, James R. Woodall, Jr., District Attorneys, For State of North Carolina *31The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 25th of March 2019 by Defendant for Petition for Rehearing of an Administrative Matter:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th of June 2019."
| (1)   | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2011 (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. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

| (1)   | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2011 (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. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Erin Maureen YOUNG, Plaintiff, v. Robert MCCLAIN, III, Defendant.

No. COA18-646

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 3, 2019

AFFIRMED IN PART. REMANDED.
STATE v. Kenneth Calvin CHANDLER

189A19-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 27, 2019

Katherine Jane Allen, Assistant Appellate Defender, For Chandler, Kenneth Calvin

G. Glenn Gerding, Attorney at Law

Jennifer T. Harrod, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, For State of North Carolina

Robert S. Banks, District Attorney, For State of North Carolina *98The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 27th of August 2019 by State of NC:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th of August 2019."

State of NC shall have up to and including the 3rd day of October 2019 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
STATE

v.

Jack Howard HOLLARS

324A19-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 21, 2019

Anne M. Gomez, Assistant Appellate Defender, for Hollars, Jack Howard.

Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender

Daniel P. O'Brien, Special Deputy Attorney General.

Nicholas Scott Brod, Attorney at Law, for State of North Carolina.

Matthew W. Sawchak, Solicitor General, for State of North Carolina.

Ryan Y. Park, Deputy Solicitor General, for State of North Carolina.

Robert S. Banks, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th of August 2019 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 21st of August 2019."

Davis, J. recused
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Jimmie Ray Johnson, Appellant

No. 06-17-00214-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 

2 of Hunt County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

CR1601102). Opinion delivered by Justice 

Burgess, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice 

Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We further order that the appellant, Jimmie Ray Johnson, pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED OCTOBER 17, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Shawn David REAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

WD 80249

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Filed: March 6, 2018

Samuel E. Buffaloe, Columbia for appellant.

Julia E. Neidhardt, Jefferson City for respondent.

Before Division Three: Gary D. Witt, Presiding Judge, Lisa White Hardwick and Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Judges

**ORDER**

Per Curiam

Shawn Reams appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing. Reams contends his plea counsel was ineffective for refusing to take the case to trial and insisting that Reams plead guilty. Upon review of the briefs and the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment. We have provided the parties with a Memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision, because a published opinion would have no precedential value.

AFFIRMED. Rule 84.16(b).
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 12, 2016.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-15-00470-CR

MILTON TYRONE DEARBORN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1430302

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Milton Dearborn appeals his conviction of assault of a family 

member, second offender. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01(a)(1), (b)(2)(A). 

Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is 

wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the 

record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See 
2

High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 811–13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).

A copy of counsel’s brief was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised 

of the right to examine the record and to file a pro se response. See Stafford v. 

State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). As of this date, more than 60 

days have passed, and no pro se response has been filed.

We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brief carefully and agree the 

appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find no reversible error in 

the record. We are not to address the merits of each claim raised in an Anders brief 

or a pro se response when we have determined there are no arguable grounds for 

review. See Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices McCally and Brown.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).