alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-20-00317-CV

MAYPHOUS COLLINS AND AKILAH 

COLLINS, Appellants

V.

LESHA STRAUSZ AND PLANO 

COLLISION CENTER, INC. D/B/A 

AUTONATION COLLISION CENTER 

PLANO, Appellees

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 352nd District Court

of Tarrant County (352-305020-18)

September 9, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Womack

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed. 

It is further ordered that appellants Mayphous Collins and Akilah Collins shall 

bear the costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue. 
SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Dana Womack

 Justice Dana Womack
Exhibit 8  Listing
of Significant Subsidiaries of Kerzner International Limited
at December 31, 2003  Name of Company
  
  Country of
  IncorporationAberdeen
  Management Limited (1)
  
  Channel
  IslandsKerzner
  Hotels International (Bermuda), Limited (1)
  
  BermudaKerzner
  International Bahamas Limited (2)
  
  The
  BahamasKerzner
  International Management Limited (3)
  
  British
  Virgin IslandsKerzner
  International North America, Inc. (4)
  
  United
  StatesKerzner
  International Timeshare Limited (5)
  
  The
  BahamasKerzner
  Investments Palmilla, Inc. (6)
  
  The
  BahamasOne&Only (Indian Ocean) Management Limited (7)
  
  British
  Virgin Islands  
 All
of the above subsidiaries are wholly owned by Kerzner, with the exception of
One&Only (Indian Ocean) Management Limited, which is 80% owned by Kerzner
and 20% owned by SRL.  (1)The Company owns a 20.4% interest in SRL, of
which 8.7% is held through Aberdeen Management Limited and the remaining 11.7%
is held through Kerzner Hotels International (Bermuda), Limited.  (2)Owner of substantially all of the Bahamian
subsidiaries.  Directly or indirectly
wholly owns eight subsidiaries, all of which are organized in the Commonwealth
of The Bahamas.  (3)Owner of the management agreement for the
Royal Mirage in Dubai.  Also receives
administrative fees from One&Only (Indian Ocean) Management Limited related
to Mauritius and Kanuhura management agreements.  (4)Owner of substantially all of the U.S.
subsidiaries.  Directly or indirectly
wholly owns 22 subsidiaries, 18 of which are organized in the U.S. and four of
which are organized in Mexico and relate to the management and development of
One&Only Palmilla Resort.  (5)Owner of the 50% interest in Harborside.  (6)Owner of the 50% interest in One&Only
Palmilla Resort.  (7)Owner of the five
Mauritius management agreements and the Kanuhura management agreement.
Exhibit 10.43

OVERALL AGREEMENT        BETWEEN SAMSONITE CORPORATION AND KARLHEINZ TRETTER        AMENDMENT #1

Effective February 1, 2001, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged, the undersigned parties hereby
amend that particular Overall Agreement dated February 1, 1998, by and between Samsonite Corporation and Karlheinz Tretter, as follows:











IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment #1 as of the date first above written.

[Signature
page to Amendment #1 to Executive Management Agreement between Samsonite Corporation and Karlheinz Tretter dated February 1, 1998.]

|SAMSONITE CORPORATION |  | KARLHEINZ TRETTER
|--------------------- |  | -----------------
|Signature:            |  | /s/LUC VAN NEVEL 
|Print Name:           |  | Luc Van Nevel    
|Title:                |  | C.E.O            



QuickLinks
#### Kraig LAGER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 42400.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

April 17, 1990.

Ellen H. Flottman, Columbia, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before NUGENT, C.J., FENNER, J., and WASSERSTROM, Senior Judge.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from denial of Rule 27.26 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentia-ry hearing.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

        We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-37347) pertaining to the 1997 Stock Incentive Plan,
the Employee Stock Purchase Plan, International Employee Stock Purchase Plan,
and EveryWare Replacement Option Plan of our report dated July 12, 1999, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and related financial statement
schedule of Pervasive Software Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended June 30, 1999.


                             /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Austin, Texas
September 27, 1999
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SABANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Great
Lakes Aviation, Ltd. (Company) for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Charles R. Howell IV, Chief Executive 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 1034, 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: March 22, 2004 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Charles R. Howell IV
|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                          | 
|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  | Charles R. Howell IV   
|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                          |  | Chief Executive Officer
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1041 

To amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to modify the applicability of 

certain requirements to double hulled tankers transporting oil in bulk 

in Prince William Sound, Alaska. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 14, 2009 

Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. BEGICH) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation 

A BILL 

To amend the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 to modify the 

applicability of certain requirements to double hulled 

tankers transporting oil in bulk in Prince William Sound, 

Alaska. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DUAL ESCORT VESSELS FOR DOUBLE HULLED 

4 TANKERS IN PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND, ALAS5 KA. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 4116(c) of the Oil Pollu7 tion Act of 1990 (46 U.S.C. 3703 note; Public Law 101– 

8 380) is amended— 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•S 1041 IS

1 (1) by striking ‘‘Not later than 6 months’’ and 

2 inserting the following: 

3 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days’’; 

4 and 

5 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(2) PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND, ALASKA.— 

7 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The requirement in 

8 paragraph (1) relating to single hulled tankers 

9 in Prince William Sound, Alaska, described in 

10 that paragraph being escorted by at least 2 

11 towing vessels or other vessels considered to be 

12 appropriate by the Secretary (including regula13 tions promulgated in accordance with section 

14 3703(a)(3) of title 46, United States Code, as 

15 set forth in part 168 of title 33, Code of Fed16 eral Regulations (as in effect on March 1, 

17 2009) implementing this subsection with re18 spect to those tankers) shall apply to double 

19 hulled tankers over 5,000 gross tons trans20 porting oil in bulk in Prince William Sound, 

21 Alaska. 

22 ‘‘(B) IMPLEMENTATION OF REQUIRE23 MENTS.—The Secretary of the Federal agency 

24 with jurisdiction over the Coast Guard shall 

25 carry out subparagraph (A) by order without 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•S 1041 IS

1 notice and hearing pursuant to section 553 of 

2 title 5 of the United States Code.’’. 

3 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

4 subsection (a) take effect on the date that is 90 days after 

5 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM Document 213-3 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:09-cv-12950-DML-VMM Document 213-3 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

KEVIN POTTER,

Petitioner, No. 09-CV12049-DT

vs. Hon. Gerald E. Rosen

WILLIE SMITH,

Respondent.

_________________________________/

ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND

DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S HABEAS CORPUS ACTION

At a session of said Court, held in

the U.S. Courthouse, Detroit, Michigan

on September 29, 2010 

PRESENT: Honorable Gerald E. Rosen

 Chief Judge, United States District Court

This matter having come before the Court on the August 4, 2010 Report and

Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Paul J. Komives recommending that

the Court deny Plaintiff’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus and that this case,

accordingly, be dismissed; and Petitioner having timely filed Objections; and the Court

having reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, Petitioner’s

Objections, and the Court’s file of this action and having concluded that, for the reasons

stated in the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s petition for habeas corpus relief

should be denied; and the Court being otherwise fully advised in the premises,

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s
Report and Recommendation of August 4, 2010 [Dkt. # 10] be, and hereby is, adopted by

this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, for the reasons set forth in the Magistrate

Judge’s Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s petition for habeas corpus relief Dkt. #

1] be, and hereby is DENIED and the above-captioned case, therefore, is DISMISSED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that for the reasons stated in the Report and

Recommendation, the Court concludes that Petitioner has not made a substantial showing

of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the Court declines to issue a

certificate of appealability or grant leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. See

Fed. R. App. Pro. 24(a).

s/Gerald E. Rosen 

Chief Judge, United States District Court

Dated: September 29, 2010

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on September 29, 2010, by electronic mail and upon Kevin Potter, #193086, Ionia

Maximum Correctional Facility, 1576 W. Bluewater Highway, Ionia, MI 48846 by

ordinary mail.

s/Ruth A. Gunther 

Case Manager
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

THOMAS BABB,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 09-11804

GREG McQUIGGIN, HONORABLE AVERN COHN

Respondent.

___________________________________/

ORDER DISMISSING MOTION FOR CERTIFICATE OF PROBABLE CAUSE AND

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

This is a habeas case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On May 11, 2009, Petitioner

Thomas Babb, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus claiming

that he is incarcerated in violation of his constitutional rights. On May 14, 2009, the

Court entered an order directing Respondent to file a response by November 19, 2009. 

On November 12, 2009, Respondent filed a response to the petition. The Rule 5

materials were later filed on November 20, 2009.

On December 3, 2009, Petitioner filed the instant “motion for a certificate of

probable cause and appointment of counsel” and a notice of appeal. In his papers,

Petitioner says he wants to appeal the denial of his petition on November 12, 2009. 

Petitioner is mistaken. As noted above, on November 12, 2009, Respondent filed a

response. The Court has not entered any dispositive order. As such, there is no order 

2:09-cv-11804-AC-CEB Doc # 11 Filed 12/07/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 680
Page 2 of 2

from which to appeal. Accordingly, Petitioner’s motion is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

 s/ Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: December 7, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to Thomas Babb,

#665335, Chippewa Correctional Facility, 4269 W. M-80, Kincheloe, MI 49784 and the

attorneys of record on this date, December 7, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

 s/ Julie Owens 

Case Manager, (313) 234-5160

2:09-cv-11804-AC-CEB Doc # 11 Filed 12/07/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 681
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION




In
connection with the periodic report of uKarma Corporation (the “Company”) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Bill Glaser, Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) and Interim Chief Financial Officer (Principal
Financial and Accounting Officer) of the Company, hereby certify as of the date
hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United
States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:




(1)
     The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.






Date:
      May 16, 2010
            /s/
      Bill GlaserBill
      GlaserChief
      Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)
              and
      Interim Chief Financial Officer
              (Principal
      Financial and Accounting Officer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

HOWARD V. WILLIAMS, ANTONIAL

RANDLE, ROY ROBINSON, DAVID

GREEN, SHAWN MCDEW, and CHARLES

PETTIES, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT and FCI

MILAN,

Defendants.

___________________________________/

Case Number: 2:09-cv-12707

HON. PATRICK J. DUGGAN

JUDGMENT

For the reasons set forth in an opinion issued this date and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2), IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the complaint is

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to Plaintiff Williams and DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to Plaintiffs Randle, Robinson, Green, McDew, and

Petties.

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Date: August 4, 2009

copies to:

Howard Williams Roy Robinson Shawn McDew 

52528060 31801039 52527060 

FCI Milan FCI Milan FCI Milan

Inmate Mail/Parcels Inmate Mail/Parcels Inmate Mail/Parcels

P.O. Box 1000 P.O. Box 1000 P.O. Box 1000

Milan, MI 48160 Milan, MI 48160 Milan, MI 48160

2:09-cv-12707-PJD-VMM Doc # 5 Filed 08/04/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 18
2

Antonial Randle David Green Charles Petties 

14272026 01665041 55210060 

FCI Milan FCI Milan FCI Milan

Inmate Mail/Parcels Inmate Mail/Parcels Inmate Mail/Parcels

P.O. Box 1000 P.O. Box 1000 P.O. Box 1000

Milan, MI 48160 Milan, MI 48160 Milan, MI 48160

2:09-cv-12707-PJD-VMM Doc # 5 Filed 08/04/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 19
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4147 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4147

To prohibit further extension or establishment of any national monument 
                  without an express Act of Congress.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 24, 1996

 Mrs. Chenoweth (for herself, Mr. Crapo, Mr. Doolittle, and Mr. Cooley 
  of Oregon) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit further extension or establishment of any national monument 
                  without an express Act of Congress.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON FURTHER EXTENSION OR ESTABLISHMENT OF 
              NATIONAL MONUMENTS.

    (a) Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no 
extension or establishment of a national monument may be undertaken in 
the United States without an express Act of Congress enacted after the 
date of enactment of this Act.
    (b) Definition of United States.--For the purposes of subsection 
(a), the term ``United States'' means the several States, the District 
of Columbia, and the territories and possessions of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
#### Aritha ADAMS, Respondent, v. James ADAMS, Appellant.

No. 66108.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

April 25, 1995.

David V. Collignon, Clayton, for appellant.

Randall D. Grady, Clayton, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, James Adams, appeals from a decree of dissolution entered in the Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis in which respondent, Aritha Adams, was awarded maintenance of $300.00 per month. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence, and no error of law appears. As we further find an extended opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm the circuit court’s order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum solely for the use *750the parties here involved has been provided explaining the reasons for our decision.
#### In re the Matter of Brian J. FAULKNER, Petitioner/Appellant, v. MISSOURI STATE HIGHWAY PATROL, et al., Respondents.

No. 69258.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Oct. 22, 1996.

Frank A. Anzalone, Clayton, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Becky Owenson Kilpatrick, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Robert P. McCulloch, Pros. Atty., Clayton, John A. Ross, Asst. Pros. Atty., St. Louis County, St. Louis, for respondents.

Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner appeals the denial of his petition to expunge his arrest records. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claim of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detañed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

ALFRED TAYLOR, 

Petitioner, 

Case No. 09-10968

v. Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff

MARY BERGHUIS, 

Respondent. 

 /

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus [dkt 1]. The matter

is currently before the Court on Magistrate Judge Komives’s Report and Recommendation [dkt 10],

in which the Magistrate Judge recommends that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be denied.

The Magistrate Judge also recommends that a certificate of appealability be denied. Petitioner has

not filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the time period in which to do so has

expired. 

 The Court has thoroughly reviewed the court file and the Report and Recommendation. As

a result of that review, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and enters it as the

findings and conclusions of this Court.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus [dkt 1]

is DENIED and a certificate of appealability is DENIED. 
IT IS SO ORDERED. 

S/Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: June 22, 2010

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this Order was served upon the attorneys of

record by electronic or U.S. mail on June 22, 2010.

S/Marie E. Verlinde 

Case Manager

(810) 984-3290
Weather Underground, Incorporated v. Navigation Catalyst Systems, Incorporated et al Doc. 8

Dockets.Justia.com
#### Christopher PETERSEN, Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN BOARD OF POLICE COMMISSIONERS, et al., Respondents.

No. 70822.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Jan. 28, 1997.

Susan L. Wilson, St. Louis, for appellant.

Harold L. Whitfield, Whitfield, Montgomery & Staples, St. Louis, for respondents.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and HOFF, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Christopher Petersen, appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis affirming the decision of respondents, the Metropolitan Board of Police Commissioners, et al., to terminate Petersen’s employment as a police officer with the City of St. Louis. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the judgment is supported by sufficient evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence, and no error of law appears. As an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

!5Smorc;ble T.I.:. 

Firet .ssiotat 

3.ltM.n ( Tex:?s 

JunQ 5, 1939 

Yriroblo ,' 

sto to hqn3rlntendent 
*e .zSzlri~ of the contract to &Ich you r0reer was 

expressly mthorlzed by statute as noted &ovo. Vie astmmo 

thntthe contractams executedandapprmredbytheoounty 

saperlntendtitti suchmmnerastonmlsethesemeavalSl 

aontraot of the school district for Omosp the trw&aeswam 

act&g. It ls probable that thie dlstxict did not entirely 

,butthatsamelssUllln 

t3xlstmce lnsoalr as cecUanelexmtarysohool 

thmelnle concerned. Qtastati.'c~.%~W&S~~ !2"' 

xc%; cotmty Board ef sahoo1- 

(2) 805; WdphaLT w. 34x c&lea* eso-s. w. &* &t&e 

2922+f,RtmisedC1~ilStatutes. &.Whaxthisbe'txuear 

not, bmrever, it is OtF 0plnlQn that the sment 

aoaldnotbedt!prlv'edorhfs~~tbythegrotxpingonlar. 

.constll.ausisl;pairingtheob~~?-~%~~ 

tocontm&srPadsbytheSta~aa~asbyindirillaals. 

6 R.C.L. 333; l2 C.J. 996 and lOl4. & smm llhdse qplus to CcmtTads of aLunlul~tlea. Young 'OS. city Qr 

colora&, s. w. 986.
J. 

any of the claims raised in the petition, we conclude that the district court 

did not err in denying the petition. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 2 

cc: Hon. Jessie Elizabeth Walsh, District Judge 

Steven Larue Scott 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Clark County District Attorney 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

2We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in 

proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude 

that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent 

that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those 

submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings 

below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A