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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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 

# A RIZONA 

# C OURT OF 

# A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.

LEVONNIE WOOTEN , Petitioner

. No. 1 CA

- CR 23

- 02 94 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR 94

- 003150 The Honorable Lisa Ann Vandenberg , Judge
REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney ’ s Office , Phoenix By Christine Davis Counsel for Respondent

Barton & Storts , Tucson By Brick P. Storts , III Counsel for Petitioner FILED 1-25-2024STATE v. WOOTEN Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown, Judge Andrew M. Jacobs , and Judge Angela K. Paton delivered the decision of the Court

.

PER CURI A M : ¶1 Petitioner Levonnie Wooten seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief

. This is his fifth 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, ¶ 1 9 , 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (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 , P.3d 1102, 1103 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burde n 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, the petition for review , the state’s response and petitioner’s reply

. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion. ¶4 We grant review and deny relief.
CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 We
consent to the incorporation by reference in Amendment No. 1 to the Registration
Statement No.333-42839 on Form S-3 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-39003,
333-39007, 333-79557, 333-67610, 333-91956, 333-121141 on Form S-8 of our report
dated March 2, 2008, relating to the consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedule of Intermec, Inc. and the effectiveness of
Intermec, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting which report
expresses unqualified opinions and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to
the adoption of new accounting principles and a emphasis of a matter paragraph
relating to a restatement, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Intermec, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007.
 Seattle,
Washington
  /s/
Deloitte & Touche, LLP
 March
2, 2008
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.5
 
                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT
 
The Board of Directors
PetroFina S.A.:
 
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of
PetroFina S.A. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-61145) of our report dated January 26,
1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheet of Petrofina Delaware,
Incorporated as of December 31, 1997 and 1996 and the related consolidated
statements of earnings, stockholder's equity and cash flows for the years then
ended, which report appears in the December 31, 1998 Annual Report on Form 20-F
of PetroFina S.A.
 
March 22, 1998
Dallas, Texas
CLARK v. CLARK.

No. COA07-1205.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed August 5, 2008.

Certification Date August 25, 2008.

Appeal from Dare (04CVS43).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
STATE v. Bobby Birdeille KELLY.

No. 529P00-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 26, 2008.

Catherine F. Jordan, Assistant Attorney General, Sam Currin, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 30th day of May 2008 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 26th day of August 2008."
----

(2004/C 33 E/263)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2342/03

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject:   Construction workers' social security fund run by the autonomous province of Bozen (Cassa Edile Provincia Autonoma Bolzano); payments by foreign construction firms

The Austrian firm Strabag AG has complained that Austrian construction firms which post workers to the autonomous province of Bozen, Italy, are required to make payments to the construction workers' social security fund run by that province even though the Austrian firms make essentially the same payments in Austria, in accordance with the law on construction workers' holidays and pay and the general law on social security.

Dual payments of this kind are demanded in particular in connection with tender procedures for public works contracts awarded by municipalities. In addition, according to reports by Italian trade unions non-EU citizens have been denied work permits because the Austrian construction firm which employs them has refused to register its workers with the relevant social security fund.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(22 August 2003)

The Honourable Member has raised questions relating to the freedom to provide services across national borders and to the provisions of Directive 96/71/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 1996 concerning the posting of workers in the framework of the provision of services (3).

----

(1)OJ L 18, 21.1.1997, p. 1.

(2)OJ C 50, 22.2.1999, p. 41.

(3)OJ L 18, 21.1.1997.

(4)OJ C 50, 22.2.1999.

----
STATE v. Christopher Lee KING.

No. 229P15-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Aug. 20, 2015.

M. Gordon Widenhouse, Jr., Attorney at Law, Chapel Hill, for King, Christopher Lee.

June S. Ferrell, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

Gary W. Frank, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th of July 2015 by Defendant for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Dissolved by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of August 2015."
STATE v. David Lee CAMPBELL.

No. 300P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 11, 2007.

Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, R. Stuart Albright, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 28th day of June 2007 by Defendant for "Petition for Plain Error Review Pursuant to N.C. 7A-28":

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 11th day of October 2007."
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

KEVIN R. BLAND,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,

Respondent

______________________

2023-1694

______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in No. SF-0752-16-0368-I-1.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R

Upon consideration of Kevin R. Bland’s motion to voluntarily dismiss pursuant to Rule 42(b) of the Federal 

Rules of Appellate Procedure and the parties’ joint response to the court’s August 22, 2023, order,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted. The petition for review is 

dismissed.

Case: 23-1694 Document: 17 Page: 1 Filed: 08/30/2023
2 BLAND v. AIR FORCE

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

August 30, 2023

 Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jarrett B. Perlow

Jarrett B. Perlow

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: August 30, 2023

Case: 23-1694 Document: 17 Page: 2 Filed: 08/30/2023
IN RE B.G.

No. COA07-131.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 19, 2007.

Certification Date July 9, 2007.

Appeal from Chatham (05JT60).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-51609

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALDEGUNDO GARCIA-HERRERA

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 2:06-CR-668

Before JOLLY, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The opinion issued in this case on July 14, 2008, is withdrawn and this

revised opinion is substituted therefor. 

Aldegundo Garcia-Herrera (Garcia) appeals the sentence he received for

violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) by illegally reentering the United States after

previously being removed. Garcia initially argued that his three-year term of

supervised release exceeds the maximum one-year term authorized by the illegal

reentry statute because he is not subject to the enhanced penalty authorized by

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 14, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 06-51609

2

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). However, the parties have now informed the Court that

while Garcia’s appeal was pending and within the first year of his term of

supervised release,the district court revoked Garcia’s term of supervised release

and sentenced him to eight months of imprisonment. The district court was

authorized to “require the defendant to serve in prison all or part of the term of

supervised release authorized by statute for the offense that resulted in such

term of supervised release without credit for time previously served on

postrelease supervision.” 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). Because Garcia’s supervised

release was revoked within the first year of his term of supervised release, and

because Garcia received a revocation sentence of less than one year, he is not

suffering any direct or collateral consequences from the erroneously imposed

three-year term of supervised release. See Spencer v. Kemma, 523 U.S. 1, 7

(1998) (noting that the case-or-controversy requirement demands that “some

concrete and continuing injury other than the now-ended incarceration or

parole—some ‘collateral consequence’ of the conviction—must exist if the suit is

to be maintained”). Thus, as all parties to this appeal now agree, the issue

presented by Garcia’s appeal is moot. We therefore dismiss Garcia’s appeal for

lack of jurisdiction. 

APPEAL DISMISSED AS MOOT.
(LOGO)
HOMESIDE
LENDING, INC.

May 15, 1998

Ms. Kimberly J. Wiggins
Contracts & Comp. Administrator
Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A.
11000 Broken Land Parkway
Columbia, MD 21044-3562

Re:
Officer's Certificate
Calendar Year Ending 12/31/97


Dear Ms. Wiggins:

As an officer of HomeSide Lending, Inc. (HomeSide),  I certify to the best of my
knowledge to the following for the 1997 calendar year:


1. I have reviewed the activities and performance of the servicing activities of
HomeSide  during the  preceding  fiscal  year  under the terms of the  Servicing
Agreement,   Trust   Agreement,   Pooling   and   Servicing   Agreement   and/or
Seller/Servicer  Guide and to the best of my  knowledge,  HomeSide has fulfilled
all of its  duties,  responsibilities  or  obligations  under  these  agreements
throughout  such year,  or if there has been a default or failure of HomeSide to
perform any of such duties,  responsibilities  or obligations,  a description of
each default or failure and the nature and status  thereof has been  reported to
Norwest Bank  Minnesota,  N.A.;

2. I have  confirmed  that HomeSide is currently an approved FNMA or FHLMC
servicer in good  standing;

3. I have confirmed  that the fidelity bond, the errors and omissions  insurance
policy and any other bonds required under the terms of the Servicing  Agreement,
Trust Agreement,  Pooling and Servicing Agreement and/or  Seller/Servicer  Guide
are in full force and effect;

4. All premiums for each hazard insurance policy,  flood insurance policy (if
applicable) and primary  mortgage  insurance    policy (if  applicable),  with
respect to each mortgaged  property,  have been paid and that all such insurance
policies  are in full force and  effect;

5. All real  estate  taxes,  governmental assessments  and any other  expenses
accrued  and due,  that if not paid  could result in a lien or encumbrance on
any mortgaged property, have been paid as and when due.

6. All custodial  accounts have been reconciled and are properly  funded; and

7. All annual  reports of  Foreclosure  and  Abandonment  of Mortgage  Property
required  per  Section  6050H,  6050J and 6050P of the  Internal  Revenue  Code,
respectively, have been prepared and filed.


Sincerely,


/s/ Terry Salazar
Terry Salazar
Vice President

Ip



        Post Office Box 44090, Jacksonville, FL 32231-4090 904-281-3000
                                                        EQUAL HOUSING LENDER


<PAGE>
Exhibit 99.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Annual Report of Telecommunications Income Fund XI (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ronald
O. Brendengen, Chief Financial Officer of Berthel Fisher & Company Leasing,
Inc., General Partner of the Company, 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 Company's 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.


March 25, 2003                              /s/  Ronald O. Brendengen
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                 Ronald O. Brendengen
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
                                                 Berthel Fisher & Company
                                                 Leasing, Inc.
                                                 General Partner
                                                 Telecommunications Income Fund
                                                 XI, L.P.
# C_2023024EN.01006501.xml

| 23.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 24/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 24/65

---

Action brought on 24 November 2022 — Kozitsyn v Council

(Case T-731/22)

(2023/C 24/90)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Andrey Anatolyevich Kozitsyn (Verkhnyaya Pyshma, Russia) (represented by: J. Grand d’Esnon, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul Council Decision (CFSP) No 2022/1530 of 14 September 2022, (1) in so far as it concerns Mr Kozitsyn, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2022/1529 of 14 September 2022, (2) in so far as it concerns Mr Kozitsyn;
  and thereby |
| --- | --- |

—

annul Council Decision (CFSP) No 2022/1530 of 14 September 2022, (1) in so far as it concerns Mr Kozitsyn, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2022/1529 of 14 September 2022, (2) in so far as it concerns Mr Kozitsyn;

and thereby

| — | declare Article 2(1)(g) of Council Decision No 2014/145/CFSP and Article 3(1)(g) of Council Regulation (EU) 269/2014 to be unlawful and |
| --- | --- |

—

declare Article 2(1)(g) of Council Decision No 2014/145/CFSP and Article 3(1)(g) of Council Regulation (EU) 269/2014 to be unlawful and

| — | disapply those provisions by way of a plea of illegality or, at the very least, declare that those provisions were illegally applied to Mr Kozitsyn;
  in any event, |
| --- | --- |

—

disapply those provisions by way of a plea of illegality or, at the very least, declare that those provisions were illegally applied to Mr Kozitsyn;

in any event,

| — | order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs pursuant to Article 140(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Council of the European Union to pay the costs pursuant to Article 140(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on eight pleas in law, which are, in essence, identical or similar to those raised in Case T-234/22, Ismailova v Council.

---

(1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/1530 of 14 September 2022 amending Decision 2014/145/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 239, p. 149).

(2)  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/1529 of 14 September 2022 implementing Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 concerning restrictive measures in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence of Ukraine (OJ 2022 L 239, p. 1).

---
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-51153

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JUAN MANUEL VENEGAS-FRANCO

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 6:07-CR-105-ALL

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Juan Manuel Venegas-Franco

(Venegas) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Venegas has not filed a response.

Our independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no

nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to

withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein,

and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 20, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
STATE v. ALLISON.

No. COA08-461.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 18, 2008.

Certification Date December 8, 2008.

Appeal from Guilford (07CRS24316, 07CRS78657, 07CRS78658, 07CRS78707).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
# **Exhibit 32.2**

# ** **

# **OFFICER’S CERTIFICATION**

 

 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, the ChiefFinancial Officer of Western Sizzlin Corporation (the “Company”), herebycertifies that the Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005 and thefinancial statements contained therein, fully comply with the requirements ofSections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and theinformation contained in the Form 10-Q and the financial statements theretofairly present, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company as of June 30, 2005, and the period then ended.

 

 
| /s/ Robyn B. Mabe |   | August 15, 2005 |
|-------------------|--------|-----------------|

 

----
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

AUG 26, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 07-13839

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-21772-CV-JEM

QANTUM COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

STAR BROADCASTING, INC., 

RONALD E. HALE, SR., 

Defendants-Appellants. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(August 26, 2008)

Before PRYOR, KRAVITCH and COX, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Star Broadcasting, Inc., and its general manager, Ronald E. Hale, Sr., appeal 
2

a summary judgment, default judgment, and award of damages and attorney’s fees 

against them and in favor of Qantum Communications, Inc., which sued to recover

damages for a breach by Star of an agreement to sell the assets of a radio station to

Qantum. We affirm. 

In a well-reasoned opinion, the district court concluded Qantum was entitled

to summary judgment and default judgment, and we conclude that the decision of

the district court was correct. The district court explained that uncontradicted

evidence in the record established as a matter of law that Star violated the plain

language of the agreement, and Qantum was entitled to the relief it sought under

the language of the agreement. We also conclude that the district court did not

abuse its discretion by granting default judgment against Star as a sanction for

misconduct after the court found that Hale engaged in a pattern of serious

misconduct. The factual findings by the district court that Hale lied under oath

about a central issue in the case, withheld discovery about that issue in bad faith,

and filed a bankruptcy petition in a bad-faith effort to delay the proceedings were

not clearly erroneous and amply support the sanction. 

We also affirm the remaining components of the judgment in favor of

Qantum. We conclude that the district court did not commit any reversible error in

its award of damages. We also conclude that the district court did not abuse its
3

discretion by awarding to Qantum all of its attorney’s fees. The award was

appropriate in the light of the “scheme of deliberate misuse of the judicial process”

by Star and Hale. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 57, 111 S. Ct. 2123,

2139 (1991). 

AFFIRMED.
TRUHAN v. WALSTON, et al.

No. 364P14-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 10, 2015.

Ann C. Ochsner, Raleigh, for Walston, Susan P.

Bryan T. Simpson, Natalia K. Isenberg, Raleigh, for Truhan, Daniel, et al.

Timothy W. Wilson, Rocky Mount, for North Carolina Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company.

M. Greg Crumpler, Rocky Mount, for United Services Automobile Association.

Thomas H. Morris, Wilson, for Walston, Susan P., et al.

Donald E. Clark, Jr., Goldsboro, for Walston, David M.

James D. Secor, III, for Argonaut Great Central Insurance Company.

Jonathan M. Smith, Goldsboro.

Donald J. Dunn, Goldsboro, for Truhan, Daniel Joseph.

Fred Baggett, for N.C. Association of Chiefs of Police.

Amy Y. Bason, General Counsel, for N.C. Association of County Commissioners.

Wanda M. Copley, County Attorney, Sharon J. Huffman, Assistant County Attorney, for New Hanover County.

Lowell L. Siler, Durham, for Durham County.

Angela I. Carmon, for City of Winston Salem.

R. Michael Cox, Pasquotank County Attorney, for Pasquotank County.

Debra Bechtel, for Catawba County.

Sam Shames, for Gaston County.

John F. Henning, Jr., Franklin, for Town of Franklin.

Wesley L. Deaton, for Lincoln County.

Huey B. Marshall, for Brunswick County.

Edmond W. Caldwell, Jr., Executive Vice President and General Counsel, for N.C. Sheriffs' Association.

Leon M. Killian, III, Raleigh, for Haywood County.

Chester M. Jones, Franklin, for Macon County.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 19th of February 2015 by Haywood County for leave to file Amicus Curiae Brief:

> "Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 10th of June 2015."
FLOYD v. ALLEN.

No. COA07-1365.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed November 4, 2008.

Certification Date November 24, 2008.

Appeal from Robeson (04CVS2159).

Case reported without published opinion. Reversed.