alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 197 (Thursday, October 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 59716]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20495]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Meeting of the Land Between The Lakes Advisory Board

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Land Between The Lakes Advisory Board will hold a meeting 
on Thursday, November 3, 2005. Notice of this meeting is given under 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. 2.
    The meeting agenda includes the following:
    (1) Welcome/Introductions/Agenda.
    (2) Panel Discussion Between Incoming/Outgoing Members.
    (3) Recognition of Outgoing Members.
    (4) Orientation for Incoming Members.
    (5) Introduction of Nature Watch Demonstration Area Topic.
    The meeting is open to the public. Written comments are invited and 
may be mailed to: William P. Lisowsky, Area Supervisor, Land Between 
The Lakes, 100 Van Morgan Drive, Golden Pond, Kentucky 42211. Written 
comments received at Land Between The Lakes will be provided to the 
members.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Thursday, November 3, 2005, 10:30 
a.m. to 3 p.m., CST.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Administrative Building, 
Land Between The Lakes, Golden Pond, KY, and will be open to the 
public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon Byers, Advisory Board Liaison, 
Land Between The Lakes, 100 Van Morgan Drive, Golden Pond, Kentucky 
42211, 270-924-2002.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: None.

    Dated: October 6, 2005.
William P. Lisowsky,
Area Supervisor, Land Between The Lakes.
[FR Doc. 05-20495 Filed 10-12-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Gift Liquidators, Inc. (the
"Registrant") on Form 10-QSB for the three-month period ending September 30,
2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Quarterly Report"), I, David Mladen, President and Chief Executive Officer
(and principal financial and accounting officer) of the Registrant, 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 Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
the Registrant.



By: /s/ David Mladen
   --------------------------------------------------
    David Mladen
    Chief Executive Officer (and principal financial
    and accounting officer)
    Dated this 21st day of November, 2005
#### Sadie THOMAS v. SPECTRUM CONTROL TECHNOLOGY, et al.

No. 2003-CC-2099.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 5, 2003.

In re Spectrum Control Technology et al.; Royal & Sunalliance Insurance Co.;—Defendant(s); Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs Office of Workers’ Compensation District 8, No. 02-05581; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2003-C-1032.

Denied.

VICTORY, J., would grant the writ.

TRAYLOR, J., would grant the writ.
Exhibit 32.2




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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A of Excellency Investment Realty Trust, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ending June 30, 2010, I, Richard Pelletier, Chief Financial Officer of Excellency Investment Realty Trust, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:




1.  Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the fiscal quarter ending June 30, 2010, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the fiscal quarter ending June 30, 2010, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Excellency Investment Realty Trust, Inc.




Dated: August 27, 2010




/s/ Richard Pelletier


Richard Pelletier, Chief Financial Officer of


Excellency Investment Realty Trust, Inc.
HOLCOMBE, et al. v. OAK ISLAND AIRCRAFT HOUSING, LLC, et al.

170P18-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 20, 2018

Christopher A. Chleborowicz, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, Elijah A.T. Huston, Attorney at Law, for 717, NC, LLC, et al.

G. Grady Richardson, Jr., Attorney at Law, for Holcombe, Claudia, et al.

Randolph M. James, Attorney at Law, Winston-Salem, for Stephenson, Kevin W.

Charles D. Meier, Attorney at Law, Wilmington, for Martin, Robert, et al.

Dawn Walton

Benedict J. Del Re, Jr., Attorney at Law, Holden Beach.

Kimberly L. Moore, Attorney at Law, Southport, for Martin, John M.

*291The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 15th of June 2018 by Plaintiffs (Claudia Holcombe, Tom Pelton, and Dos Aves, LLC) to Dismiss Appeal:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 20th of September 2018."
In the MATTER OF: M.T.

No. COA17-1347

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 5, 2018

AFFIRMED.
Souad DASS v. Fabien Anthony DASS

No. 92P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 7, 2018

Ms. Laura M. Cobb, Charlotte, Attorney at Law, for Dass, Fabien Anthony

Ms. Rebecca K. Watts, Monroe, Attorney at Law, for Dass, Souad

Mr. Paul A. Tharp, Charlotte, Attorney at Law, for Dass, Fabien Anthony *853***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 27th of March 2018 by Defendant 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 7th of June 2018."
Exhibit 14.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The
Supervisory Board
DaimlerChrysler AG

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-123535, which includes Post-Effective Amendment No. 1 to Registration Statement No. 333-13160)
on Form F-3 of DaimlerChrysler North America Holding Corporation and the registration statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-5074, 333-7082, 333-8998, 333-86934 and 333-86936) of
DaimlerChrysler AG of our report dated February 23, 2006, except for Note 3 which is as of June 2, 2006, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of
DaimlerChrysler AG as of December 31, 2005 and 2004, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended December 31, 2005, which report appears in DaimlerChrysler AG's 2005 Annual Report on Form 20-F. Our report refers to the change in DaimlerChrysler's
method of accounting for conditional asset retirement obligations in 2005, the change in DaimlerChrysler's method of accounting for stock-based compensation in 2003, and DaimlerChrysler's adoption of
FASB Interpretation No. 46 (revised December 2003), "Consolidation of Variable Interest Entitiesan interpretation of ARB No. 51," in 2003.

KPMG
Deutsche Treuhand-Gesellschaft
Aktiengesellschaft Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft

Stuttgart,
Germany
June 30, 2006

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 32.1






CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO






SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002






In
connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,
2009 (the “Report”) by China Carbon Graphite Group, Inc. (the “Company”), I,
Donghai Yu, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Ting Chen, the
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as added by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on
my knowledge:






1.  The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and






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




Dated:  November
      16, 2009
            By:
            /s/
      Donghai YuDonghai
      Yu
              Chief
      Executive OfficerBy:
            /s/
      Ting ChenTing
      Chen
              Chief
      Financial Officer




This
certification accompanies each Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed original of this written statement
required by §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished upon
request.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l y c onc l ude s the s e c a s e s a r e s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T DA NI E L S AR T AI N, P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. R O B E R T M E Y E R S ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N os . 08- 55683 08- 56317 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 5 -cv -0 5 0 6 7 -V A P -JC ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l s f

rom the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia V i r gi ni aA . P hi l l i ps , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry 16, 2010 ** B efo re: F E RN A N D E Z , G O U L D , an d M . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. In these consol i dat ed appeal s, D ani el S art ai n, a C al i forni a s t at e pri soner, appe a l s pr o s e f

r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s s um m a ry j udgm e nti n hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c tio n a lle g in g th a t d e f

e n d a n ts f a ile d to tr e a t h is c h r o n ic p a in c o n d itio n p r o p e r lyin



# FI LED MA R 08 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSD S/ Res ea r ch 08- 55683 2 vi ol at i on of the E i gh th and F ou rt ee nth A m endm ent s. W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o , T oguc hiv . Chung , 391 F . 3d 1051, 1056 ( 9 th Ci r . 2 0 0 4 ) , a n d w e a f f i rm. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt p r o p e r lyg r a n te d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n th e E ig h th A m endm entcl ai m because S art ai n d i d n otra i se a tri abl e i ss ue as t o w hether de f e nda nt s ’ c hos e n c our s e of tr e a tm e nt“ w a s m e di c a l l y una c c e pt abl e unde rthe c ir c u m s ta n c e s , a n d w a s c h o s e n in c o n s c io u s d is r e g a r d o f a n e x c e s s iv e r is kto [S art ai n’ s] heal th. ” Se e i d. at10 58 (i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks and ci t at i on om i tt ed). T he di stri ctcourtprop er l y grant ed sum m ary j ud gm enton the equal prot ec t i on cl ai m because S art ai n d i d n otra i se a tri abl e i ss ue as t o w hether he w as i n t en t i o n al l y treat ed d i fferen t l y fro m si m i l arl y si tu at ed i n m at es. See T ho rnton v. C i t yof St. H e le ns , 42 5 F . 3d 11 58 , 11 66 -67 (9th C i r. 20 05 ). T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on by de ny i ng S a rt a i n’ s m ot i ons for app oi ntm entof coun se l because S art ai n fai l ed t o d em on stra t e e xcept i on al c ir c u m s ta n c e s w a rr a n tin g ap p o in tm e n t o f c o u n s e l. See T

erre l l v. B re w er , 935 F . 2d 10 15 , 10 17 (9th C i r. 19 91 ). S art ai n’ s r em ai ni ng cont ent i on s are un pers uasi ve.D S/ Res ea r ch 08- 55683 3 S a rt a i n’ s F e brua ry 3, 2010, m ot i on f ora n e m e r ge nc y i nj unc t i on a nd r e s tr a i ni ng or de ri s de ni e d. AF F I RME D.
Order entered February 9, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00272-CR

VALENTIN CARUS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 291st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-63142-U

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On January 28, 2015, we granted the motion of Lori Ordiway to withdraw as counsel and 

ordered the trial court to appoint new counsel for appellant. We have received the trial court’s 

order appointing Allan Fishburn as appellant’s attorney. Accordingly, we DIRECT the Clerk to 

list Allan Fishburn as appellant’s attorney of record.

We note that appellant’s brief was filed on December 8, 2014, and the State has neither 

filed a brief nor filed a timely extension motion seeking an extension of time to file its brief. The 

appeal has been set at issue and will be submitted in due course.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to Allan 

Fishburn and the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office.

/s/ LANA MYERS

JUSTICE
#### John Scola et al., Respondents, v Sun International North America, Doing Business as Resorts Casino Hotel, et al., Appellants.

[719 NYS2d 107]

In an action to recover dam*467ages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Huttner, J.), dated March 15, 2000, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff John Scola was allegedly injured when he slipped and fell on spilled coffee on the lobby floor of the defendants’ hotel and casino. In support of their motion for summary judgment, the defendants established, prima facie, that they did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the allegedly slippery condition *(see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History,*67 NY2d 836; *Lewis v Metropolitan Transp. Auth.,*64 NY2d 670; *Gill v City of Mount Vernon,*275 AD2d 733). The burden then shifted to the plaintiffs to come forward with sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact *(see, Cellini v Waldbaum, Inc.,*262 AD2d 345). In opposition, the plaintiffs asserted only that the defendants had constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition. However, the plaintiffs failed to submit proof that the coffee spill was visible and apparent, and had been present on the floor for a sufficient length of time before the accident to permit the defendants’ employees to discover and remedy it *(see, Gordon v American Museum of Natural History,*supra;*Padilla v White Plains City School Dist,*266 AD2d 442; *Pirillo v Long-wood Assocs.,*179 AD2d 744). The bare conclusory assertions contained in the affidavit of the plaintiffs’ expert, which consisted primarily of speculative allegations with no independent factual basis, were insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact and defeat the defendants’ motion for summary judgment *(see, Amatulli v Delhi Constr. Corp.,*77 NY2d 525, 533; *Aghabi v Sebro,*256 AD2d 287; *Shildkrout v Board of Educ.,*173 AD2d 603, 604). S. Miller, J. P., McGinity, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 23, 2015

No. 04

- 15

- 00777

- CV

IN RE Cassandra L. LEIJA

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez , Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa , Justice

Jason Pul liam , Justice

On December 10, 2015, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. This court is of the

opinion that a serious question concerning the mandamus relief sought requires further

consideration. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(b ). The respondent and the real party in interest may

file a response to the petition in thi s court no later than January 20 , 2016. Any such

response must conform to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.4

.

It is so ORDERED on December 23, 2015

.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

___________________________ _____

Keith E. Hottle , Clerk

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2010

- 08

- 27732

- CV , styled In the Interest of J.J.C., A Child , pending in

the 38th Judicial District Court

, Uv alde County, Texas, the Honorable Spencer Whitewood Brown presiding.
# United States **Court of Appeals** 

**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

October 6, 2016

ERRATUM

_____________________

Appeal No. 15

- 3234

TIMOTHY ALLEN RAINEY

, Petitioner

v.

MERIT SYSTEMS PROTEC TION BOARD,

Respondent

DEPARTMENT OF STATE,

Intervenor

Decided : June 7, 2016

Precedential Opinion

______________________

Please make the following changes:

On page 6, line 2, delete “section 2308” and replace

with “section 2302”

On page 8, line 16, delete “2308(b)(9)(D)” and replace

with “2302(b)(9)(D)”RAINEY v. MSPB 2

On page 8, line 31, delete “2309(b)(9)(D)” and replace

with “2302(b)(9)(D).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

ESTATE OF ROBERT H. AGNEW, 

MARGARET ALZAMORA, INDIVIDUALLY 

AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE 

OF ROBERT H. AGNEW, WILLIAM AND 

SHEILA HENNESSY, H/W, MARGARET 

HENNESSY, JAMES AND CHRISTINE 

HENNESSY, H/W AND PAUL AND 

EILEEN JANKE, H/W, 

 

 v. 

DANIEL R. ROSS, ESQUIRE, MEGAN 

MCCREA, ESQUIRE AND ROSS & 

MCCREA, LLP 

No. 347 MAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the 

Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 9th day of September, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

is GRANTED. The issues, as stated by petitioners, are: 

(1) Whether the Superior Court erred when it determined, in a published 

decision, contrary to Guy v. Liederbach, 501 Pa. 47, 459 A.2d 744 (1983), 

as well as reported Superior Court decisions, Gregg v. Lindsay, 437 Pa. 

Super. 206, 649 A.2d 935 (1994), Cardenas v. Schober, 2001 Pa. Super. 

253, 783 A.2d 317 (2001) and Hess v. Fox Rothschild, 20[0]7 Pa. Super. 

133, 925 A.2d 798 (Pa. Super. 2007), an executed testamentary 

document naming a third party as a beneficiary was not a prerequisite for 

that third party to have standing to bring a legal malpractice action based 

on breach of contract as third party intended beneficiary of contract 

against the testator’s attorney? 

PETITION OF: DANIEL R. ROSS, 

ESQUIRE AND MEGAN MCCREA, 

ESQUIRE
[347 MAL 2015] - 2 

(2) Whether the Superior Court so far departed from accepted judicial 

practices or abused its discretion in failing to apply the clear precedent of 

Guy v. Liederbach, as well as other reported Superior Court decisions, 

Gregg v. Lindsay, Cardenas v. Schober and Hess v. Fox Rothschild, when 

it determined an executed testamentary document naming a third party as 

a beneficiary was not a prerequisite for that third party to have standing to 

bring a legal malpractice action based on breach of contract as third party 

intended beneficiary of contract against the testator’s attorney? 

(3) Whether the Superior Court erred when it determined, in a published 

decision, evidence of the intent of the promisor (the testator’s attorney) 

alone was sufficient to establish an issue of fact to defeat summary 

judgment on the issue of a third party’s standing to pursue a legal 

malpractice breach of contract action against a testator’s attorney?
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

January 30, 2012 

p0123 

Order 

 

January 30, 2012 

143873 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 143873 

 COA: 305012 

Kent CC: 10-001487-FC 

RAHEIM JAMAR REID, 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 31, 2011 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
STATE of North Carolina v. Shelley Anne OSBORNE

No. 355PA18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 30, 2019

Meghan Adelle Jones, Attorney at Law, for Osborne, Shelley Anne.

Alesia Mikhaulauna Balshakova, Assistant Attorney General, Teresa M. Postell, Assistant Attorney General, Derrick Mertz, Special Deputy Attorney General, Garland N. Yates, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 2nd of November 2018 by State of NC 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:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of January 2019."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
1 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please

2 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 

3 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated

4 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does

5 not include the filing date. 

6 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

7 CITY OF RIO RANCHO,

8 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

9 v. NO. 29,442

10 MICHAEL THOMAS CRISCUOLO, 

11 Defendant-Appellant.

12 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANDOVAL COUNTY

13 John F. Davis, District Judge

14 Gina R. Manfredi, Assistant City Attorney

15 Rio Rancho, NM

16 for Appellee

17 Michael T. Criscuolo

18 Los Lunas, NM

19 Pro Se Appellant

20 MEMORANDUM OPINION

21 VIGIL, Judge.

22 Defendant, pro se, appeals from the district court judgment and sentence

23 finding him guilty of the charge of no seatbelt, in violation of NMSA 1978, § 66-7-
2

1 372 (2001). This Court’s first notice proposed summary affirmance. Defendant

2 filed a memorandum in opposition to the proposed disposition. We are not

3 persuaded by Defendant’s arguments, and affirm. 

4 Defendant continues to assert that Section 66-7-372 does not apply because

5 the driving laws are established for drivers, not passengers. [MIO 33] Defendant

6 also questions why he should be charged with a driving infraction when public

7 transportation provides no safety restraints and passengers are not issued traffic

8 citations for no seatbelts. [MIO 33] Section 66-7-372 is contained in the “Safety

9 Belt Use Act,” NMSA 1978, §§ 66-7-370 to -373 (1985, as amended through

10 2001). Section 66-7-372(A) provides that “each occupant” shall wear a safety belt. 

11 The traffic laws are created for traffic safety of all occupants of a motor vehicle,

12 and there is no distinction between drivers and passengers in the statute. Because

13 the statute applies to all occupants of a motor vehicle, we affirm the district court

14 judgment and sentence.

15 For these reasons, and those stated in the first notice of proposed disposition,

16 we affirm the district court. 

17 IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

19 

20 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge
3

1 WE CONCUR:

2 

3 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Chief Judge

4 

5 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Judge