alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTICE: NOT FOR PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COUR T 111(c), THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS D IVISION O NE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent
,

v.

GEORGE MILTON WICKER, Petitioner

.
No. 1 CA-CR 12-0610 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR0000-136401 The Honorable Robert L. Gottsfield, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL
Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix By Joseph Maziarz Counsel for Respondent

George Wicker, Florence PetitionerSTATE v. WICKER Decision of the Court

2 MEMORANDUM DECISION
Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould, Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge Jon W. Thompson delivered the following decision of the Court.

PER CURIAM :

¶1 In 1984, petitioner George Milton Wicker pled no contest to five counts of kidnapping and four co unts of sexual assault. The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 105 years’ imprisonment and this court affirmed his convictions and sentences on direct appeal. Wicker now seeks review of the summary di smissal of his third successive petition for post-conviction relief. We have jurisdiction under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.9(c).

¶2 Wicker argues that the Sexually Violent Persons Act (“SVP Act”), now codified at A.R.S. §§ 36- 3701 to –3717, constitutes a significant change in the law that is retroactive an d entitles him to be resentenced to a shorter term of imprisonment. Th e SVP Act became effective in 1996. 1995 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch. 257, § 11(B) (1 st Reg. Sess.). Wicker committed the offenses in 1983 and his convictions became final in 1987.

¶3 We grant review and deny relief. The civil commitment provisions of the SVP Act could apply to Wicker if he lives long enough to complete his sentences. See Martin v. Reinstein , 195 Ariz. 293, 308, ¶ 44, 987 P.2d 779, 794 (App. 1999) (holding that ex post facto prohibitions do not apply to the civil commitment prov isions of the SVP Act). There is, however, nothing in the SVP Act that requires the trial court to resentence Wicker to shorter terms of imprisonment simply to increase the likelihood that he might live long enough to be subject to the Act, and Wicker offers no authority to the cont rary. Further, this issue is precluded because Wicker could have raised it in a prior, timely post-conviction relief proceeding after the SVP Act became ef fective in 1996. This is Wicker’s second post-conviction relief acti on since 1996. Any claim that a defendant could have raised in an e arlier post-conviction relief proceeding is precluded. Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a) . None of the exceptions under Rule 32.2(b) apply.STATE v. WICKER Decision of the Court

3 ¶4 For the foregoing reasons, we deny relief.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 18, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 30927]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15392]



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

OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS


Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance Review Board: Updating

AGENCY: Office of Government Ethics (OGE).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the appointment of members of the 
updated OGE SES Performance Review Board.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 18, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert E. Lammon, Associate Director 
for Administration, Office of Government Ethics, 1201 New York Avenue, 
NW., Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005-3917; telephone: 202-208-8000; 
FAX: 202-208-8037; Internet E-mail address: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a9dbccc5c8c4c4c6c7e9c8ddddc4c8c0c587cac6c4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a0d2c5ccc1cdcdcfcee0c1d4d4cdc1c9cc8ec3cfcd">[email protected]</span></a> (for 
E-mail messages, the subject line should include the following 
reference--OGE SES Performance Review Board).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 5 U.S.C. 4314(c) requires each agency to 
establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of 
Personnel Management at 5 CFR part 430, subpart C and Sec. 430.307 
thereof in particular, one or more Senior Executive Service performance 
review boards. As a small executive branch agency, OGE has just one 
board. In order to ensure an adequate level of staffing and to avoid a 
constant series of recusals, these newly designated members of OGE's 
SES Performance Review Board are being drawn, as in the past, primarily 
from the SES ranks of other agencies because OGE itself currently has 
only three SES members. The board shall review and evaluate the initial 
appraisal of each OGE senior executive's performance by his or her 
supervisor, along 1with any recommendations in each instance to the 
appointing authority relative to the performance of the senior 
executive. This notice updates the membership of OGE's SES Performance 
Review Board as it was last published at 58 FR 14225-14226 (March 16, 
1993).

    Approved: June 12, 1996.
Stephen D. Potts,
Director, Office of Government Ethics.
    The following have been selected as regular members of the SES 
Performance Review Board of the Office of Government Ethics:

F. Gary Davis [Chair], Deputy Director, Office of Government Ethics
Joseph E. Gangloff, Principal Deputy, Public Integrity Section, 
Department of Justice
Gabriele J. Paone, Deputy Agency Ethics Staff Officer, Department of 
the Interior
James H. Thessin, Deputy Legal Adviser, Department of State
Steven Y. Winnick, Deputy General Counsel for Program Service, 
Department of Education

[FR Doc. 96-15392 Filed 6-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6345-01-P

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOHN HAMILTON, et al.

Plaintiffs,

-vsSUSAN HALL, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-74698

HONORABLE AVERN COHN

ORDER

On July 18, 2007, the Court considered the following two motions at a hearing:

• Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Discovery (Dkt. # 208)

• Defendant Van Buren’s Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Damages Claim

(Dkt. # 191)

For reasons stated on the record, the motion to compel is MOOT.

For reasons stated on the record, the motion to strike plaintiffs’ damages claim is

DENIED.

Three damage computation papers have been filed by plaintiffs:

1. The Rule 26(2)(B) Report of Landini, Reed & Dawson, P.C., dated June 18,

2007;

2. The Supplemental Rule 26(a)(2)(B) Report of Landini, Reed & Dawson, P.C.,

dated July 12, 2007; and

3. Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Rule 26(a) Damages Consultation filed July 13,

2007 (Dkt. # 223-5).
2

These papers are sufficient at this point in the case to support the claim of damages of

Jo-Bet, Inc. and Garter Belt, Inc. only.

The fact that the earnings of Jo-Bet, Inc. and Garter-Belt, Inc. for income tax

purposes pass through to John Hamilton does not, as the record stands at this point,

establish a claim of damages by John Hamilton. See Letter of July 19, 2007 to the

Court.

SO ORDERED.

 s/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: July 26, 2007

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the parties of

record on this date, July 26, 2007, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Donald NATIONS, Appellant.

No. WD 51594.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 25, 1996.

Rosalynn Koch, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Fernando Bermudez, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before LOWENSTEIN, P.J., and HANNA and SPINDEN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Donald Nations appeals his convictions of two counts of sodomy because of improper argument by the prosecutor. The error did not rise to the level of plain error causing manifest injustice or miscarriage of justice. Affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
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 on amended Form 10-Q of Wellentech
Services, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30,
2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the “Report”), I, Irwin Rapoport, Chief Executive Officer and Principal
Accounting Officer 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
      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 present, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.









/S/  Irwin
Rapoport


Irwin
Rapoport


Chief
Executive
Officer




August 14,
2008
United States of America 

vs. 

Nelson Junior Blackmountain 

Defendant 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Case No.: 18-04057P0-001-PCT-DMF 

DETERMINATION OF RELEASE 

CONDITIONS AND RELEASE ORDER .I 

FILED 

RECEIVED 

LODGED 

COPY 

r/P ' IT IS ORDERED the defendant be released subject to the following conditions: MAR O· 1 2018 

,,,\,• 

)'f 

CONDITIONS OF RELEASE CLERK U S DISTRICT COURT 

Defendant shall appear as indicated: DISTRICT Or ARIZQNA 

BY D~PUTY 

DATE: March 20, 2018. TIME: 2:00 pm LOCATION: Flagstaff, Arizona 

For: D Initial Appearance D Preliminary Hearing IZl Status Hearing D Trial 

During the pendency of this case defendant will: 

(1) Appear to answer and submit himself/herself to all further orders and processes of the Court having jurisdiction in this case; 

(2) Not commit any federal, state or local criminal offense; 

(3) Notify the Court of any change of address or telephone number and not leave the State of Arizona without permission of the 

Court; 

(4) Promise to appear at all proceedings as required and to surrender for service of any sentence imposed; 

(5) The defendant must cooperate in the collection ofa DNA sample ifthe collection is authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 14135a; 

(6) Defendant shall not consume or possess any alcohol or illegal drugs (The use or possession of marijuana, even with a physician's "1'v 

certification, is not permitted.); 

(7) Defendant shall participate in drug/alcohol counseling/treatment and shall pay for the cost of treatment. 

(8) Contact his/her attorney weekly by 12:00 PM on Friday. 

OTHER CONDITIONS OF RELEASE 

D Defendant will execute an appearance bond approved by the Court, or as specified in General Order 14-16, in the total amount of 

---~ payable by certified check or money order only. 

0 Defendant, in order to obtain sobriety, shall remain in the custody of the arresting agency or a pretrial detention facility for 12 

hours from the time of arrest. ARREST TIME: ____________ _ 

IXI Defendant shall be released to the Third Party Custody of: =S=ha=n=a'-'-y=a~U'""p=sh=a~w~---------------

Who agrees (a) to supervise the Defendant in accordance with the conditions of this order; (b) to use every effort to 

assure the appearance of Defendant at all scheduled hearings; and (c) to notify the Court immediately if Defendant violates 

any condition of this release or will not appear. 

0 If defendant desires to reach a pre-court hearing resolution of this matter, contact ______________ _ 

· on for a pretrial conference. 

, Acknowledgement of Defendant 

I acknowledge that I am the defendant in this case and that I am aware of the conditions of release. I promise to obey all conditions or 

release, to appear as directed, and to surrender for service of any sentence imposed. I am aware that a fai.lure to follow my conditions 

of release may result in my release being revoked, a finding of contempt of court, prosecution for committing a crime on release or 

prosecution for failure to appear, resulting in additional fines or incarceration. 
United States of America vs. Nelson Blackmountain Page 2 of2
Order entered December 21, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-09-01068-CV

DONALD CARDWELL AND 121 INVESTMENTS, L.L.C., Appellants

V.

BILL GURLEY, Appellee

On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 06-03299

ORDER

A review of the clerk’s record shows that the Dallas County District Clerk could not 

locate several items critical to determining our jurisdiction. Specifically, appellants’ request for 

findings of fact and conclusions of law, motion for new trial, and notice of appeal cannot be 

located. Also, the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law cannot be located.

Accordingly, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5(e), we ORDER the 

trial court to conduct a hearing and make findings of fact regarding:

1. whether, after a further search, file-stamped copies of appellants’ request for 

findings of fact and conclusions of law, motion for new trial, notice of appeal, and the trial 

court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law can be located;
2. if the above-listed documents cannot be located, whether the parties can agree on 

substituted file-stamped copies of appellants’ request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, 

motion for new trial, notice of appeal, and the trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of 

law; and

3. if the parties cannot agree, the trial court shall determine what constitutes an 

accurate copy of the missing items and order them to be included in a supplemental clerk’s 

record.

See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5(e).

We ORDER the trial court to transmit a supplemental clerk’s record containing its 

written findings, any supporting documentation, and any orders to this Court within THIRTY 

DAYS of the date of this order.

We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order to the Honorable Dale 

Tillery, Presiding Judge, 134th Judicial District Court, Felicia Pitre, Dallas County District 

Clerk, and counsel for all parties.

We ABATE this appeal to allow the trial court to comply with this order. The appeal 

will be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the supplemental clerk’s record 

containing the trial court’s findings is received, whichever occurs sooner.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RICHARD BILOVUS,

Plaintiff,

v.

PROGRESSIVE METAL

MANUFACTURING, CO.,

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 08-14701

Honorable John Corbett O’Meara

ORDER OF PARTIAL DISMISSAL

Plaintiff Richard Bilovus filed a four-count complaint against defendant Progressive Metal

Manufacturing, alleging the following causes of action: Count I, violations of the Age

Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621, et seq.; Count II,

violations of Michigan’s Elliott Larsen Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”), Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. §

37.2201; Count III, retaliation under the ADEA; and Count IV, retaliation under the ELCRA.

While claims alleging violations of federal law are cognizable in this court pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1331, the remaining allegations in the complaint present claims based on state law. The

parties to this matter are not diverse. Therefore, this court declines to exercise pendent jurisdiction

over the state claims. See United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715 (1966); 28 U.S.C. §

1367(c). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Counts II and IV are DISMISSED.

s/John Corbett O'Meara

United States District Judge

Dated: March 11, 2009

5:08-cv-14701-JCO-MJH Doc # 10 Filed 03/11/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 30
2

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to the parties of record on this

date, March 11, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/William Barkholz

Case Manager

5:08-cv-14701-JCO-MJH Doc # 10 Filed 03/11/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 31
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 125 (Thursday, June 27, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33496-33497]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16351]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulation Commission
[Docket No. RP95-296-003]


Williams Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

June 20, 1996.
    Take notice that on June 17, 1996, Williams Natural Gas Company 
(WNG), tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with the 
proposed effective date of March 14, 1996:
Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 251
Substitute Third Revised Sheet No. 252
Second Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 253
Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 254
    WNG states that this filing is being made in compliance with 
Commission order issued May 17, 1996, in Docket No. RP95-296-002. WNG 
was directed to revise its tariff to incorporate the following 
modifications: (1) posting the availability of the PDM gas at least 21 
days prior to the beginning of the month, (2) posting on the EBB to be 
held open until two business days prior to the date beginning-of-the-
month nominations are due (four business days prior to the first day of 
each month), (3) posting on the EBB the amount of the winning bid, the 
name of the winning bidder, and an indication of whether the winning 
bidder is an affiliate, (4) for a six-month period, prohibiting bids on 
PDM volumes for periods longer than one month, and (5) posting on the 
EBB 12 months of the production history for the applicable PDM gas 
packages.
    WNG states that a copy of its filing was served on all participants 
listed on the service lists maintained by the Commission in the dockets 
referenced above and on all jurisdictional customers and interested 
state commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulation Commission, 888 First Street, NE, 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to

[[Page 33497]]

be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-16351 Filed 2-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3581 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3581

    To facilitate a land exchange involving private land within the 
  exterior boundaries of Wenatchee National Forest in Chelan County, 
                              Washington.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 5, 1996

  Mr. Hastings of Washington introduced the following bill; which was 
                 referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To facilitate a land exchange involving private land within the 
  exterior boundaries of Wenatchee National Forest in Chelan County, 
                              Washington.

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

SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF LANDS ACQUIRED BY LAND EXCHANGE IN WENATCHEE 
              NATIONAL FOREST.

    Notwithstanding section 206(c) of the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1716(c)), any lands acquired by the 
Secretary of the Interior by exchange, which are located within that 
portion of the Wenatchee National Forest in Chelan County, Washington, 
encompassed by section 1 of Township 23 North, Range 19 East, 
Willamette Meridian, shall be administered by the Secretary through the 
Bureau of Land Management. The acquired lands shall not be reserved for 
or become a part of the Wenatchee National Forest.
                                 <all>
```
#### Kenneth G. CHARRON, Appellant, v. Lisa (Logsdon) CHARRON, Respondent.

No. WD 50968.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Submitted Dec. 19, 1995.

Decided March 5, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 30, 1996.

Kenneth G. Charron, Pro se.

Lisa (Logsdon) Charron, Pro se.

Before SMART, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and BERREY, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Charron appeals from the trial court’s judgment assessing costs against him *563in the amount of $82.00 in his dissolution of marriage case.

Judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 111 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 111

            For the relief of Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 6, 2009

Mrs. Feinstein introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
            For the relief of Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel.

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

SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for 
the purposes of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et 
seq.), Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel shall each be deemed to have been 
lawfully admitted to, and remained in, the United States, and shall be 
eligible for adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted 
for permanent residence under section 245 of the Immigration and 
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) upon filing an application for such 
adjustment of status.
    (b) Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsection (a) shall apply 
only if the application for adjustment of status is filed with 
appropriate fees not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
    (c) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Numbers.--Upon the granting of 
permanent resident status to Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel, the 
Secretary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 2, 
during the current or subsequent fiscal year, the total number of 
immigrant visas that are made available to natives of the country of 
birth of Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel under section 203(a) of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)), or, if applicable, 
the total number of immigrant visas that are made available to natives 
to the country of birth of Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel under section 
202(e) of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)).
                                 <all>
```