alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZ. R. SUP. CT. 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT

AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

RAYMOND ROJAS STEVENS, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 12-0747 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2006-146397-001

 CR2010-138650-001

The Honorable Phemonia L. Miller, Pro Tem

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General, Phoenix

By Joseph T. Maziarz

Counsel for Respondent

Raymond Rojas Stevens, Florence

Petitioner
STATE v. STEVENS

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Kenton D. Jones delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Patricia A. Orozco and Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop joined.

J O N E S, Judge:

¶1 Petitioner Raymond Rojas Stevens petitions this court for 

review from the dismissal of his petition for post-conviction relief. 

Presiding Judge Orozco, and Judges Winthrop and Jones have considered 

the petition for review and, for the reasons stated, grant review but deny 

relief.

¶2 In 2007, Stevens pled guilty to aggravated assault and the 

trial court sentenced him to 2.5 years imprisonment. In 2011, Stevens pled 

guilty to aggravated DUI and the trial court sentenced him to five years

imprisonment. As stipulated in the plea agreement, the trial court used 

Stevens's prior aggravated assault conviction to enhance the DUI 

sentence. 

¶3 In August 2012, Stevens filed a pro se consolidated petition 

for post-conviction relief in both cases. That petition for post-conviction 

relief served as a timely "of-right" petition for post-conviction relief in the 

DUI case, but was the first untimely petition he filed in the aggravated 

assault case. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4(a) (A defendant must initiate a Rule 32 

of-right proceeding within ninety days of the entry of judgment and 

sentence.). The trial court dismissed the petition and Stevens now seeks 

review. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 32.9(c). 

¶4 Giving Stevens the benefit of the doubt as to the issues 

properly presented for review, Stevens argues the trial court could not 

enhance the range of sentence for his DUI conviction with the prior 

conviction for aggravated assault because at some unidentified time, the 

trial court "dismissed" the aggravated assault case and/or conviction. We 

deny review. The record on review for the aggravated assault case 

establishes neither the charge nor the resulting conviction was dismissed 

and Stevens provides no evidence to the contrary. 
STATE v. STEVENS

Decision of the Court

3

¶5 While the petition for review arguably presents additional 

issues, Stevens 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. Bortz, 169 Ariz. 575, 577, 821 P.2d 236, 

238 (App. 1991); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii).

¶6 For the above reasons, we grant review and deny relief.
#### STATE ex rel. HENNESSY et al., Relators, *v.*DISTRICT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT, Respondent.

(No. 1,778.)

(Submitted February 11, 1902.

Decided February 11, 1902.)

*Writ of Supervisory Control*— Remedy *by Appeal*— Question *of Title.*

On a 'denial of an order permitting a survey and inspection of a mining claim, the supreme court will not grant a writ of supervisory control, there being a remedy by appeal from the judgment finally rendered in the cause, and a question of title involved in the cause being one for the district court in the first instance.

PetitioN by tbe state, oe Ttbe relation of Patrick J. Hennessy and another, for a writ of supervisory control to the Second judicial district court of the state of Montana for Silver Bow county.

Writ denied.

*Mr. T. Bailey*Lee, for Eelators.

ME. CHIEF JUSTICE BEANTLY

delivered the opinion of the court.

Application for a writ of supervisory control. Petition was filed in the district court of Silver Bow county by plaintiff in a suit therein pending for an order permitting a survey and inspection of a mining claim. The order was denied for the reason that, in the opinion of the district court, the plaintiff failed to show any interest in himself in the property in controversy.

The writ is denied, for the reason that the question involved, if properly reserved, may be reviewed on appeal from the judgment finally rendered in the cause, and no exigency is shown requiring immediate interference by this court; and also be*275cause to grant it would require tbis court prematurely to- pass upon the question of title, and thus adjudicate the ultimate rights of the parties, which must be1 done by the district court-in the first instance.

*Writ denied.*

Mr. Justice Pigott:

I concur.

Mn. Justice Mil-burst:

I concur in the result.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                                          76,227
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  131,420
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               620,015
<PP&E>                                          19,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                     410
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,127,287
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          165,726
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       107,710
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,838,851
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,127,287
<SALES>                                        104,757
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               104,757
<CGS>                                           48,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  302,864
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,429
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 250
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (255,036)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.02)



</TABLE>
#### George L. Merkley, Respondent, *v.*Raymond L. Cline, Appellant.

Third Department,

June 28, 1911.

Malicious prosecution — prohahle cause — charge — holding plaintiff for grand jury — presumptive evidence — definition.

Although, strictly speaking, í ‘ presumptive ” evidence has a broader significance than *“primcC facie”*evidence, still, as ordinarily used, the terms are practically synonymous.

In an action for malicious prosecution it is error to refuse to charge that the fact that plaintiff was held to await the action of the grand jury is presumptive [used in the sense *oí prima faeie]*evidence that defendant had probable cause for procuring his arrest.

Appeal by the defendant, Eaymond L. Cline, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the„ office of the clerk of the county of Montgomery on the 6th day of-July, 1910, upon the verdict of a jury for $800, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the same day denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.

*Edward R. Hall,*for the appellant.

*George G. Butler,*for the respondent.

Per Curiam:

The action is for malicious prosecution. The plaintiff was arrested and taken before a magistrate and after examination was held to await the action of the grand jury.

Aside from the damages suffered .by the plaintiff the principal question litigated was the existence of probable cause for the arrest of the plaintiff.

At the close of the charge the defendant’s counsel asked the learned trial court to instruct the jury *“*that the fact .that the justice held the plaintiff to await the action of the grand jury is presumptive evidence of probable cause;” This was refused and an exception taken.

It is expressly held in *Schultz*v. *Greenwood Cemetery*(190 N. Y. 276) that the holding of a plaintiff in an action for *693malicious prosecution, by a magistrate, after examination into the facts, to await the action of the grand jury, is *prima facie*evidence of probable cause for prosecution.

The language of the request was that it was “presumptive evidence5’ of probable 'cause’ Strictly speaking, “presumptive ” evidence has a broader significance than *“prima facie*” evidence, but as ordinarily used the terms have practically the same meaning. The law gave to the defendant, notwithstanding the plaintiff was obliged to prove want of probable cause, such benefit upon that issue as might flow from the fact that a magistrate after examination had held the plaintiff to await the action, of .the grand jury. The request to charge being substantially correct in form we think it was such error to refuse it as requires a reversal of the judgment.

The judgment and order should be reversed and a new trial granted, with, costs to appellant to abide the event.-

All concurred.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide event.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                              CONSENT OF KPMG LLP




The Board of Directors
Bone Care International, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement
(No. 333-23885) on Form S-8 and the registration statement (No. 333-71845) on
Form S-3 of Bone Care International, Inc. of our report dated August 6, 1999,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Bone Care International, Inc. and
subsidiary as of June 30, 1999 and 1998, and the related consolidated statements
of operations, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the
three-year period ended June 30, 1999, which report appears in the 1999 annual
report on Form 10-K of Bone Care International, Inc.

Our report dated August 6, 1999, contains an explanatory paragraph that states
that Bone Care International, Inc. has suffered recurring losses from operations
that raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern.
The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments that might
result from the outcome of that uncertainty.

Chicago, Illinois
September 17, 1999
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2258 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2258

     To extend the temporary suspension of duty on <greek-b>-Bromo-
                        <greek-b>-nitrostyrene.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 21, 2000

  Mr. Breaux introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To extend the temporary suspension of duty on <greek-b>-Bromo-
                        <greek-b>-nitrostyrene.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

 SECTION 1. <greek-B>-BROMO-<greek-B>-NITROSTYRENE.

    (a) In General.--Subheading 9902.32.92 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States is amended by striking ``12/31/2001'' and 
inserting
``12/31/2004''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Rural Housing Service

# AGENCY:

Rural Housing Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Rural Housing Service, USDA published a document in the                         **Federal Register**                         of February 2, 2010, concerning upcoming public forums and request for comments regarding the Section 523 Mutual Self-Help Housing Program. Notice is hereby given that the forums scheduled for June 4, 2010 in Vermont and June 11, 2010 in Iowa have been cancelled.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Carolyn L. Bell,                         *carolyn.bell@wdc.usda.gov*                         or (202) 720-1532.                    

Dated: May 4, 2010.

Tammye Treviño,

Administrator, Rural Housing Service.

[FR Doc. 2010-11559 Filed 5-13-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-XV-P
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Troy Gas Company v. The City of Troy, Impleaded.

Order amended so as to provide for ten dollars costs of that motion, with ten dollars costs of this motion in addition.
#### Nichols v. Smith.

Where an appeal is by agreement submitted upon the brief in another action, and no argument, oral or printed, is in fact made, no costs can be taxed for argument.

(Opinion filed February 21, 1905.)

On appeal from taxation of costs.

Affirmed.

For former opinion see 19 S. D. 159, 101 N. W. 1105.

Haney, J.

The order of the circuit court appealed from in this action was affirmed on the authority of Barron v. Smith, *16219 S. D. 50, 101 N. W. 1105, in a memorandum decision not yet officially reported. Respondent’s notice of adjustment of posts contained the item, “For argument, $15,” to which appellant objected. The item was disallowed, and respondent appealed. The ruling of the clerk was right. When no argument, either oral or printed, is made in this court, the item, “For argument, $15,” should not be allowed. Searl v. City of Lead, 10 S. D. 405, 73 N. W. 913. None was made in this case. It was stipulated by the parties, presumably for the purpose of saving costs and disbursements, that the appeal in this ac • tion should be submitted upon the brief in Barron v. Smith, supra. It is true that if no such stipulation had been entered into, and no brief filed in this case, it might have been dismissed for want of proper prosecution, but the stipulation prevented dismissal, rendered an argument unnecessary, and none was made.

The clerk’s taxation is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 18, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 27825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11812]


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

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

National Endowment for the Arts


Arts Advisory Panel

    Pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that one meeting 
of the Arts Advisory Panel to the National Council on the Arts will be 
held at the Nancy Hanks Center, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20506 as follows (ending times are approximate):

Design/Mayor's Institute on City Design 25th Anniversary Initiative

    (Application review): June 3-4, 2010 in Room 714. A portion of 
this meeting, from 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on June 4th, will be open 
to the public for policy discussion. The remainder of the meeting, 
from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on June 3rd and from 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. 
and from 4:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. on June 4th, will be closed.

    The closed portions of meetings are for the purpose of Panel 
review, discussion, evaluation, and recommendations on financial 
assistance under the National Foundation on the Arts and the Humanities 
Act of 1965, as amended, including information given in confidence to 
the agency. In accordance with the determination of the Chairman of 
November 10, 2009, these sessions will be closed to the public pursuant 
to subsection (c)(6) of section 552b of Title 5, United States Code.
    Any person may observe meetings, or portions thereof, of advisory 
panels that are open to the public, and if time allows, may be 
permitted to participate in the panel's discussions at the discretion 
of the panel chairman. If you need any accommodations due to a 
disability, please contact the Office of AccessAbility, National 
Endowment for the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20506, 202/682-5532, TDY-TDD 202/682-5496, at least seven (7) days 
prior to the meeting.
    Further information with reference to these meetings can be 
obtained from Ms. Kathy Plowitz-Worden, Office of Guidelines & Panel 
Operations, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506, or 
call 202/682-5691.

    Dated: May 13, 2010.
Kathy Plowitz-Worden,
Panel Coordinator, Panel Operations, National Endowment for the Arts.
[FR Doc. 2010-11812 Filed 5-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 12, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26759-26760]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11368]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Health Resources and Services Administration


Health Care Integrity and Protection Data Bank (HIPDB) and 
National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB): Public Posting of Non-Compliant 
Government Agencies

AGENCY: Health Resources and Services Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of intent to publish list of non-compliant Government 
agencies.

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

SUMMARY: ``Government agencies,'' as defined in section 1128E(g)(3) of 
the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7e(g)(3)), that are not in 
compliance with the reporting requirements of the HIPDB will have their 
names published in a report on the HRSA and Data Bank Web sites (http://www.hrsa.gov and http://www.npdb-hipdb.hrsa.gov) by July 1, 2010. This 
listing of non-compliant Government agencies will be reviewed and 
updated on a periodic basis.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The HIPDB was mandated by Section 1128E of 
the Social Security Act (SSA) as added by Section 221(a) of the Health 
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Government 
agencies that license or certify health care practitioners, providers 
or suppliers, must report final adverse actions to the HIPDB generally 
within 30 days of the date the action becomes final. With the March 1, 
2010, effective date of the final rule implementing Section 1921 of the 
SSA, many of the actions reported to the HIPDB also are

[[Page 26760]]

now posted and available for querying in the NPDB.
    Section 1128E(b)(6)(B) of the SSA (42 U.S.C. 1320a-7e(b)(6)(B)) 
states that ``[t]he Secretary shall provide for a publication of a 
public report that identifies those Government agencies that have 
failed to report information on adverse actions as required to be 
reported [to the HIPDB].''
    Beginning no later than July 1, 2010, the Department will publish a 
report on the HRSA and Data Bank Web sites that identifies those 
professions for which Government agencies' reporting history has been 
analyzed. The report will also set forth a list of those Government 
agencies that are: (1) Out of compliance with reporting requirements 
(that is, they have failed to address their non-compliance); and (2) 
working toward full compliance with reporting requirements (that is, 
they have begun reporting). The listing of non-compliant Government 
agencies will be reviewed and updated on a periodic basis.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark S. Pincus, Acting Director, 
Division of Practitioner Data Banks, Bureau of Health Professions, 
Health Resources and Services Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Suite 
8-103, Rockville, Maryland 20857. Tel: (301) 443-2300.

    Dated: May 5, 2010.
Mary K. Wakefield,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-11368 Filed 5-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4165-15-P