alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
• 1,777,14;77 

are not belied by the record and, if true, would entitle him to relief. 

Hargrove v. State, 100 Nev. 498, 502, 686 P.2d 222, 225 (1984). 

First, Smith argues that the district court erred by not 

conducting an evidentiary hearing and denying his claim that, prior to his 

decision to represent himself, counsel was ineffective for failing to move to 

suppress a photographic lineup. The district court denied this claim 

because Smith could have moved to suppress the lineup once he began 

representing himself and he was unable to fault prior counsel for his own 

errors. Smith correctly asserts that because he assumed representation 

the day before trial, any attempt to suppress the lineup would have been 

untimely and the district court would have been within its discretion to 

deny it on that basis. See EDCR 3.20(a); EDCR 3.28. However, because 

Smith failed to demonstrate that the outcome at trial would have been 

different even if the photographic lineup had been suppressed, we 

conclude that the district court did not err by denying this claim without 

conducting an evidentiary hearing. See Wyatt v. State, 86 Nev. 294, 298, 

468 P.2d 338, 341 (1970) (affirming a decision of the district court if it 

reaches the right result). 

Second, Smith argues that the district court erred by denying 

his claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to successfully 

argue that the State violated Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and 

that the violation caused him prejudice. The district court denied this 

claim because appellate counsel argued that the State violated Brady and 

addressed prejudice and Smith failed to demonstrate the manner that 

counsel should have argued the claim which would have had a reasonable 

probability of success on appeal. We conclude that Smith failed to 

demonstrate that district court erred by denying this claim. See Mazzan V. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(o) 1947A 

2 
J. 

Warden, 116 Nev. 48, 67, 993 P.2d 25, 37 (2000) (summarizing the 

components necessary to show a Brady violation). 

Third, Smith argues that the district court erred by denying 

his claim that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise trial 

counsel's ineffectiveness on direct appeal. The district court denied this 

claim because raising trial counsel's ineffectiveness on direct appeal would 

have been inappropriate. See Feazell v. State, 111 Nev. 1446, 1449, 906 

P.2d 727, 729 (1995). We conclude that the district court did not err by 

denying this claim. 

Having considered Smith's contentions and concluded that 

they lack merit, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

Saitta 

cc: Hon. Doug Smith, District Judge 

Law Offices of Martin Hart, LLC 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

3 

Douglas
#### Jerry L. BAUER, Respondent, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, State of Missouri, Appellant.

No. 64836.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

May 10, 1994.

*637Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., James A. Chenault, III, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Mo. Dept, of Revenue, Jefferson City, for appellant.

Michael M. Frank, Clayton, for respondent.

CRIST, Judge.

The Director of Revenue (Director) appeals the trial court’s reinstatement of driving privileges to Jerry Bauer (Driver) after their revocation for failure to submit to a chemical test. We reverse and remand.

The Director revoked the driver’s license of Driver for one year for failure to submit to a chemical test, pursuant to § 577.041, RSMo Supp.1993. The notice of revocation stated it was mailed on June 29, 1993. On August 2, 1993, Driver filed a petition for review in the circuit court. In the petition, Driver alleged he was notified of the revocation of his license on or about June 29,1993. On August 27, 1993, the prosecuting attorney confessed judgment in the case and the trial court reinstated Driver’s license.

Director contends the trial court was without jurisdiction to reinstate Driver’s license, because Driver had failed to timely file his petition for review. We agree. Driver had only thirty days after notice of revocation to file his petition for review. § 302.311, RSMo 1986; *Romans v. Director of Revenue,*783 S.W.2d 894, 896 (Mo. banc 1990). The thirty days runs from the date of delivery or mailing of notice. § 536.110, RSMo 1986; *Welch v. Director of Revenue,*859 S.W.2d 230, 231 (Mo.App.1993).

Notice was mailed to Driver on June 29, 1993, and Driver admitted in his petition he was notified on or about June 29, 1993. Therefore, Driver’s petition filed on August 2, 1993, thirty-four days later, is untimely. *See, Evans v. Director of Revenue,*871 S.W.2d 90, 91 (Mo.App.1994); *Ramey v. Director of Revenue,*865 S.W.2d 442, 443 (Mo.App.1993). This failure to file a timely petition deprives the trial court of jurisdiction, and the court’s reinstatement of Driver’s license is null and void. *See, Romans,*783 S.W.2d at 896; *Welch,*859 S.W.2d at 231; *Johnston v. Director of Revenue,*851 S.W.2d 128, 128 (Mo.App.1993). In addition, the prosecuting attorney’s confession of judgment does not vest the court with subject matter jurisdiction which is otherwise lacking. *Feldmann v. McNeill,*772 S.W.2d 409, 410 (Mo.App.1989).

We reverse the decision of the trial court and remand with directions to the trial court to dismiss Driver’s petition.

CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD, J., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 11, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 29560]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14633]



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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5516-9]


Notice of Public Meetings on Drinking Water Issues

    Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) is holding a series of public meetings for purposes of informal 
information exchange on various issues related to the development of 
rules that address microbial contaminants and disinfectants/
disinfection by-products in drinking water. Microbial contaminants and 
disinfectants/disinfection by-products were the subject of a negotiated 
rulemaking process which resulted in agreement to develop three rules--
an Information Collection Rule (ICR), a Disinfectants and Disinfection 
By-Products (D/DBP) Rule, and an Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule 
(ESWTR). The negotiated rulemaking committee met from September 1992 
through June 1993, with signature documents in the first half of 1994. 
Since then, EPA and drinking water utilities have worked principally on 
technical issues concerning the ICR, which was published in the Federal 
Register on May 14, 1996. At a one-day stakeholder meeting held by EPA 
on May 10, 1996, to review the status of the three rules generated by 
the negotiated rulemaking process attendees voiced interest in having a 
series of future information exchange meetings.
    EPA currently has scheduled a two-day information exchange meeting 
on June 13 and 14, 1996, with discussions focusing on linkages between 
the ICR, health effects research, the ESWTR and the D/DBP Rule. The 
meeting agenda also includes updates on developmental and reproductive 
health effects research related to disinfection by-products and 
discussion of ICR data objectives and issues. The meeting will be 
preceded by a one-day technical meeting held on June 12 to discuss ICR 
protozoa monitoring issues in preparation for a summary discussion on 
June 13th.
    EPA is inviting all interested members of the public to participate 
in these and subsequent information exchange meetings. Another two-day 
meeting is currently being planned for later in the year. Additional 
meetings are also planned.
    The June meetings will be held in Washington, D.C., at the office 
of the Center for Environmental Dispute Resolution (RESOLVE). A limited 
number of phone lines will also be available to enable attendance by 
teleconference. Because there are limitations on conference room 
seating and the number of phone lines, members of the public who are 
interested in attending on any of the three days are requested to 
contact Elizabeth Corr of EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking 
Water at (202) 260-8907 prior to the day of the meeting. Members of the 
public who wish to be notified of future meetings should also contact 
Elizabeth Corr.

    Dated: June 5, 1996.

Cynthia C. Dougherty,

Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.

[FR Doc. 96-14633 Filed 6-10-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 111 (Friday, June 7, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 29096]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-14462]



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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5513-8]


Community-Based Environmental Protection Committee of the 
National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology; 
Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92463, EPA 
gives notice of a two-day meeting of the Community-Based Environmental 
Protection Committee of the National Advisory Council for Environmental 
Policy and Technology (NACEPT). NACEPT provides advice and 
recommendations to the Administrator of EPA on a broad range of 
environmental policy issues, and the Community-Based Environmental 
Protection Committee was formed to identify opportunities for 
harmonizing environmental policy, economic activity, and ecosystem 
management.
    The meeting is being held to discuss recommendations the Committee 
plans to submit to EPA. Scheduling constraints preclude oral comments 
from the public during the meeting. Written comments can be submitted 
by mail, and will be transmitted to Committee members for 
consideration.

DATES: The public meeting will be held on Wednesday, July 17, and 
Thursday, July 18, 1996, at the U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program Office, 
410 Severn Avenue, Annapolis, Maryland. On Wednesday, July 17, the 
Committee will meet from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and on Thursday, July 
18, the Committee will meet from 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Mark Joyce, Office of 
Cooperative Environmental Management, U.S. EPA (1601F), 401 M Street 
SW, Washington, D.C. 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Joyce, Designated Federal 
Official, Direct line (202) 260-6889, Secretary's line (202) 260-9744.

    Dated: May 23, 1996.
Mark Joyce,
Designated Federal Official.
[FR Doc. 96-14462 Filed 6-06-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

ELIZABETH A. STRANGE 

First Assistant United States Attorney 

District of Arizona 

Christine D. Keller. 

Assistant U.S. Attorney 

Illinois State Bar No. 6281316 

Two Renaissance Square 

40 N. Central Ave., Suite 1200 

Phoenix, Arizona 85004 

Telephone: 602-514-7500 

Email: Christine.Keller@usdoj.gov 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

FILED _:!_ LODGED 

RECEIVED COPY 

MAY 1 ,1 2018 

CLER�

I<. t;,;;., Dl�3TRICT COURT

DI''- !CT OF ARIZONA 

BY i DEPUTY 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Colin Lee Juan, 

Defendant. 

No. CR-18-00113-PHX-DJH (DKD) 

PLEA AGREEMENT 

Plaintiff, United States of America, and the defendant, COLIN LEE JUAN, hereby 

agree to dispose of this matter on the following terms and conditions: 

1. PLEA

The defendant will plead guilty to Count 3 of the Indictment charging the defendant

with a violation of 18 United States Code (U.S.C.) §§ 1153 and 113(a)(8), Assault by 

Strangulation of a Spouse or Intimate Partner, a Class C felony offense. 

2. MAXIMUM PENALTIES

a. A violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(8), is punishable by a maximum fine of

$250,000.00, a maximum term of imprisonment of 10 years, or both, and a term of 

supervised release of 3 years. Each supervised release violation for a Class C felony may 

carry a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)(3). 

Case 2:18-cr-00113-DJH Document 29 Filed 05/14/18 Page 1 of 10
Case 2:18-cr-00113-DJH Document 29 Filed 05/14/18 Page 2 of 10
Case 2:18-cr-00113-DJH Document 29 Filed 05/14/18 Page 3 of 10
Case 2:18-cr-00113-DJH Document 29 Filed 05/14/18 Page 4 of 10
Case 2:18-cr-00113-DJH Document 29 Filed 05/14/18 Page 5 of 10
Case 2:18-cr-00113-DJH Document 29 Filed 05/14/18 Page 6 of 10
Case 2:18-cr-00113-DJH Document 29 Filed 05/14/18 Page 7 of 10
Case 2:18-cr-00113-DJH Document 29 Filed 05/14/18 Page 8 of 10
Case 2:18-cr-00113-DJH Document 29 Filed 05/14/18 Page 9 of 10
Case 2:18-cr-00113-DJH Document 29 Filed 05/14/18 Page 10 of 10
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 508 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 508

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                         July 29, 2009.
Whereas general aviation includes all civilian flying except scheduled passenger 
        airlines;
Whereas there are nearly 600,000 licensed pilots in the United States and an 
        estimated 500,000 of these pilots fly general aviation aircraft;
Whereas the United States accounts for more than half of all general aviation 
        activity worldwide;
Whereas 170,000,000 passengers fly annually using personal aviation;
Whereas there are more than 231,000 active general aviation aircraft in the 
        United States;
Whereas the general aviation industry contributes more than $150,000,000,000 to 
        United States direct and indirect economic output;
Whereas the United States general aviation industry employs nearly 1,300,000 
        people whose collective annual earnings exceed $53,000,000,000;
Whereas general aviation contributes high-skill jobs in aircraft manufacturing, 
        avionics and technology development, flight training, maintenance, 
        modification, and technical support;
Whereas an estimated 65 percent of general aviation flights are conducted for 
        business and public services, many of which are located in or need 
        access to smaller communities that do not have commercial aviation;
Whereas general aviation helps save lives through the transport of blood 
        supplies, vital transport organs, and other time-critical items;
Whereas general aviation contributes to economic development by facilitating 
        meetings and other activities for businesses of all sizes;
Whereas general aviation is used to protect the environment by assisting with 
        the surveying of wildlife, the mapping of wetlands, and the patrolling 
        of parklands;
Whereas general aviation is a vital tool for agricultural producers, who often 
        rely on air service for crop planting and protection as well as 
        livestock herd management;
Whereas general aviation aids in law enforcement through patrolling highways, 
        apprehending suspects, monitoring national borders, and locating lost 
        children;
Whereas there are 5,200 public use airports and more than 13,000 privately owned 
        landing facilities in the United States; and
Whereas only about 500 of these airports have commercial airline service, making 
        general aviation an integral part of the transportation system that 
        supports communities across the United States and provides essential air 
        travel options to businesses and the public: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
            (1) recognizes the many contributions of the general aviation 
        industry; and
            (2) encourages general aviation activities.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 


~CI. 5.w. &yd, Eay 23, 1939, *s 4 
fiat. -6.N. Boyd, liq 23, 1939, RA@+ 5 _ 

Ghere any seine, strike nett, g%iu not tzxumael 

net or shrl.cp trawl18 iouml by say offlear or the stats 

unpx3oasaed In closed water0 In rlolatlaa:oS 6krtiole 9SeL 

10, Vcmmn*s Annotated Civil Stettatsa, and it is 8elaed 

end delivered to the oouuty judge or jtutloe ofthe'poaaa 

in aooordanoewlthprovloiaaa of aeot~ SOS 0auL artI0a6,the raquir8f2dmt 0r posting 0r 30 dam nOti in indioative of the rwognitlca by the Isglelature of the 

*ass kna- 

%suatbg that &he 

yourletter*woare 

-the~in I; 

.:, . 

Tom8 very truly
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 Annual Report of Roebling  Financial Corp, Inc.
(the  "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended  September 30, 2003 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),  we, Frank J. Travea, III, President and Chief Executive Officer, and
Janice A. Summers,  Senior Vice  President,  Chief  Operating  Officer and Chief
Financial Officer,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


         A signed  original of this  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>



<S>                                        <C>
/S/Frank J. Travea, III                             /s/Janice A. Summers
-------------------------------------               ---------------------------------------------
Frank J. Travea, III                                Janice A. Summers
President and Chief Executive Officer               Senior Vice President, Chief Operating Officer
                                                    and Chief Financial Officer


</TABLE>


December 23, 2003
Exhibit 10.92

 

**Amendment No. 3**

**To**

**Trademark License And TechnicalAssistance Agreement**

**Covering Men’s Products**

 

This Amendment No. **3** is dated May 31, 2001 andamends the Trademark License and Technical Assistance Agreement for Men’sCollections dated January 15, 1998 by and between Latitude Licensing Corp. andI.C. Isaacs & Co., L.P. covering Men’s Products (the “Agreement”).  Two previous amendments in November 12, 1998and June 21, 2000, have been entered into. Capitalized terms used herein have the meaning ascribed to them in theAgreement unless otherwise indicated.

 

*Forgood and valuable consideration, the receipt of which Is hereby**acknowledged, the parties agree to amend theAgreement as follows:*

 

**1.**             Paragraph**8.3**the Agreement is amended to read as follows:

*“Licenseeshall exercise every reasonable effort to promote and advertise the Productsthroughout the Territory and shall, prior to the end of each calendar year,submit to Licensor, in reasonable detail, proposed plans and budgets for thesubsequent annual promotional campaign. In addition to the Minimum Advertising Expense, Licensee shallparticipate in the production costs of photos and images for the advertisingcampaign to the extent of $35,000, twice per year, paid directly to theLicensor or the production agency as designated by the Licensor.  The first such payment shall apply to theSpring/Summer 2002 season.  Thesepayments do not include any usage rights, which will be billed directly toLicensee by such production agency. Licensor and Licensee shall cooperate closely in the creation andexecution of advertising programs”.*

 

**2.**             ThisAmendment is effective starting on the date stated above once it has beensigned by both parties.

 

**3.**             Exceptfor the terms amended by this Amendment, the Agreement as existing until theexecution of this Amendment No. **3** shall continue in full force and effect.

 

 

 

| **LATITUDE  LICENSING CORP.** | **I.C.  ISAACS & COMPANY L.P.**                           |
|-------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------|
|                          | **By:  I.C. Isaacs & Company, Inc., its General Partner** |
|                          |                                                          |
|                          |                                                          |
| By:                           | /s/ Antoine Feidt                                             |   | By: | /s/ Robert J. Arnot |   |
| Name:                         | Antoine Feidt                                                 |   | Name: | Robert J. Arnot |
| Title:                        |                                                          |   | Title: | Chairman & CEO |

 

 

----
#### MERCURY DIAMONDS, INC., Plaintiff/Respondent, v. William SULLIVAN, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 65791.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

Dec. 6, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Jan. 10, 1995.

Roger M. Hibbits, Clayton, for appellant.

Vincent D. Vogler, Stephen C. Christian-sen, Vogler & Associates, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before SMITH, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and WHITE, JJ.

*MEMORANDUM OPINION*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from a judgment by default against him entered after the Court struck defendant’s pleadings for failure to make discovery in a suit on an account. We have determined that the judgment of the trial court was within its discretion and that no error of law appears and that an opinion would have no precedential value.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 50334 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

SENAIDA GONZALES

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:07

- CR

- 15

- 1

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Senaida Gonzales has moved for

leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California

, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011).

Gonzales h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the
relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s
assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review.
Accordingly, counsel’s motion fo r leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is
excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED.

See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 2 1 , 2014
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-50334 Document: 00512540435 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/21/2014