alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

GUSTAVO VALENCIA

,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

State. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 6

- 00 165

- CR

Appeal from the

168 th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20140D05521 )

O R D E R

The Court has received and filed the supplemental clerk’s record requested in this Court’s

order issued November 30, 2016. The appeal is therefore reinstated, and the Reporter’s Record

shall be due in this office on or before February 16, 2017.

I T IS SO ORDERED this 17 th day of January, 2017

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., R odriguez and Palafox

, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 23.01

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (File nos. 333-87516, 333-82252, 333-72518, 333-57672,
333-40456, 333-31484, 333-78087, 333-51945, 333-40645 and 333-38363) and on Form
S-3 (No. 333-36170) of Concord Communications, Inc. of our report dated January
15, 2003 relating to the financial statements, which appears in this Form 10-K.

                                                  /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
                                                  PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 18, 2003
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
   I, Rafael
Pinedo, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  (1)
              the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Chancery Resources, Inc. for the period
      ended May 31, 2009 (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 presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Chancery
      Resources, Inc.
  Dated:
July 21, 2009
  /s/
      Rafael PinedoRafael
      PinedoPresident
      and Director(Principal
      Executive Officer)Chancery
      Resources, Inc.
  A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Chancery Resources, Inc. and will be
retained by Chancery Resources, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, 

v.

SANTOS VILLAREAL, Petitioner. 

No. 1 CA-CR 18-0882 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2011-123571-004 

The Honorable Daniel G. Martin, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Daniel Strange

Counsel for Respondent 

Santos Villareal, Buckeye

Petitioner

FILED 7-9-2019
STATE v. VILLAREAL

Decision of the Court

2 

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Paul J. McMurdie, Chief Judge Peter B. Swann, and Judge 

Samuel A. Thumma delivered the following decision.

PER CURIAM: 

¶1 Petitioner Santos Villareal seeks review of the superior court’s 

order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to 

Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is Villareal’s second petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19 (2012). It is the petitioner’s burden 

to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition 

for post-conviction relief. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 

2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find the petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion. 

¶4 We grant review but deny relief.
#### Jefferson P. McCORMICK, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Maurice LANDRIEU et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 71-3129.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 22, 1972.

Louis R. Koerner, Jr., New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellant.

Blake G. Arata, City Atty., Robert K. Tracy, Charles C. Foti, Jr., Maurice R. Franks, Numa Y. Bertel, Jr., New Orleans, La., for defendants-appellees.

Before COLEMAN, GOLDBERG and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is an attempt to appeal from an order of the trial court dismissing some but not all of the parties defendant. Appellant’s attorney has now agreed that the order appealed from is not a “final judgment” under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1291 and that neither 28 U.S.C.A. § 1292(b) nor Rule 54(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., justifies our presently reviewing the dismissal order. *See*Wright, Federal Courts §§ 101, 102 (2d ed. 1970). An appeal of the dismissal order must thus await the entry of a final judgment in the district court, and this appeal will be dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit
99.2








CERTIFICATE
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 (the “Report”) on the Form 10-Q of Sona
Resources, Inc. (the “Company”) for the three months ended December 31, 2008, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Ajeeta
Pinheiro, Chief Executive Officer, President and Director, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:





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





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








Date: 
January 27, 2009








AJEETA
PINHEIRO


Ajeeta
Pinheiro


Chief
Executive Officer,


President
and Director











-1-
----

| Nevada                                                                                                  | 87-0479286                              |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
| (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)       | (I.R.S. Employer Identification Number) |

----

| Large Accelerated Filer [ ] |   | Accelerated Filer [ ] |   | Non-Accelerated Filer [ ](Do not check if a smallerreporting company) |   | Smaller Reporting Company [x] |
|-----------------------------|--------|-----------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|

----

| Dated: November 14, 2016 |                    |                      |
|--------------------------|-------------------------|---------------------------|
|                     | ACQUIRED SALES CORP.    |
|                     |                    |                      |
|                     | By:           | /s/ Gerard M. Jacobs |
|                     | Gerard M. Jacobs        |
|                     | Chief Executive Officer |

----
Exhibit 23.2

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

PHC, Inc.
Peabody, MA.

We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (No's.  333-2246,  333-41494,  333-76137,  333-117146 and
222-141431)  and Form S-8 (No's  333-102402  and  333-123842)  of PHC,  Inc. and
subsidiaries of our report dated August 23, 2005,  relating to the  consolidated
statements  of income,  changes in  stockholders'  equity and cash flows for the
year ended June 30, 2005, which appears in this Form 10-K/A.




/s/  BDO Seidman, LLP
Boston, MA
October 3, 2007

                                       73
181 La. 625

#### STATE v. MATHERNE et al. In re MATHERNE.

No. 33227.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 4, 1935.

Rehearing Denied March 4, 1935.

*101Pugh & Lanier, of Thibodaux, and W. J. & H. W. Waguespaek, of New Orleans, for rela-tors.

G. L. Porterie, Atty. Gen., James O’Con-nor, Asst. Atty. Gen., J. A. O. Coignet, Dist. Atty., of Thibodaux, and Lessley P. Gardi-ner, Sp. Asst, to Atty. Gen., for the State.

Milling, Godchaux, Saal & Milling and L. K. Benson, all of New Orleans, amici curios.

Philip S. Pugh, Jr., of Crowley, amicus curias on behalf of relators.

POURNET, Justice.

Relators, Lucien Matherne, Edward Ver-din, Howard Kraemer, T. B. Martin, Alvin Kraemer, Claude Rodrigue, Ernest Detino, Morris Cheramie, Durac Cheramie, and Sidney Matherne, were convicted on a bill of information for taking possession of property belonging to another, and each sentenced to pay a fine of $15, and, in addition, to serve thirty days in the parish jail, join in a common petition to this court for writs of certiorari, prohibition, and habeas corpus.

In his return, the district judge admits that the pleadings in the matter of State v. Morris Cheramie and Durac Cheramie and State v. Howard Kraemer are the same as in the case of State ex rel. Edward Panville v. Butler (La. Sup.) 160 So. 99, but that in the matter of State v. Ernest Detino, State v. Howard Kraemer and T. B. Martin, and State v. Alvin Kraemer and Claude Rodrigue, and State v. Sidney Matherne, their status is different in that said named relators did not fila a motion asking for a bill of particulars, nor was there a motion to quash the information or a motion in arrest of judgment filed by them.

Counsel in their brief state that said rela-tors had been previously arraigned and pleaded not guilty before employing counsel, and, in fact, only employed counsel on the date of trial; that counsel offered a motion in each case to withdraw the plea of not guilty so as to file a motion for a bill of particulars, but the district attorney interposed an objection, which objection was sustained on the ground that the plea of not guilty had been already entered, and that the motion came too late.

Counsel for relators argue that the district attorney and the judge were too technical. While the judge in the court below apparently does not deny that the facts are similar to the Panville Case, nevertheless, he does not admit the facts are the same. They have presented nothing that this court can act upon, and, accordingly, as to said relators Lucien Matherne, Edward Verdin, Howard Kraemer, T. B. Martin, Alvin Kraemer, Claude Rodrigue, Ernest Detino, and Sidney Matherne, the relief prayed for is denied, and the writ herein issued is set aside and annulled.

For the reasons assigned in the case of State ex rel. Panville v. Butler (La. Sup.) 160 So. 99, the conviction and sentence of the lower court, in so far as it affects Morris Cheramie, Durac Cheramie, and Howard Kraemer are annulled and set aside; the writ of prohibition herein granted is perpetuated, and the judge of the Seventeenth judicial court therefore prohibited from proceeding with the execution of the judgment and sentence.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 156 (Tuesday, August 12, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 46962]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18558]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11310]


Minnesota Disaster Number MN-00015

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 4.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Minnesota 
(FEMA-1772-DR), dated 06/25/2008.
    Incident: Severe Storms and Flooding.
    Incident Period: 06/06/2008 through 06/12/2008.

DATES: Effective Date: 08/05/2008.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 08/25/2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing And Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road Fort, Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: M. Mitravich, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of 
MINNESOTA, dated 06/25/2008, is hereby amended to include the following 
areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

Primary Counties: Cook.

    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Herber L. Mitchell,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E8-18558 Filed 8-11-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 457

To authorize the Secretary of the Army to provide technical assistance to

local interests for planning the establishment of a regional water authority in northeastern Ohio.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 9, 1995

Mr. TRAFICANT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To authorize the Secretary of the Army to provide technical

assistance to local interests for planning the establishment of a regional water authority in northeastern Ohio.

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

3 SECTION 1. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR PLANNING OF

4 REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY IN NORTH5 EASTERN OHIO.

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Army is au7 thorized to provide technical assistance to local interests

8 for planning the establishment of a regional water author-
2

•HR 457 IH

1 ity in northeastern Ohio to address the water problems

2 of the region.

3 (b) FEDERAL SHARE.—The Federal share of the cost

4 of planning activities described in subsection (a) shall not

5 exceed 75 percent.

Æ
Exhibit 32.01  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  In connection with the Quarterly Report of Anoteros, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, George G. Chachas, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (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 presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.  /s/ George G. Chachas By: George G. Chachas Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  Dated: July 20, 2009  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 536 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 536

 To extend indefinitely the authority of the Secretary of the Interior 
    to collect a commercial operation fee in the Delaware Water Gap 
           National Recreation Area, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 17, 1995

  Mr. McDade introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To extend indefinitely the authority of the Secretary of the Interior 
    to collect a commercial operation fee in the Delaware Water Gap 
           National Recreation Area, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY TO COLLECT FEES.

    (a) In General.--The third undesignated paragraph under the heading 
``ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS'' in chapter VII of title I of Public Law 
98-63 (97 Stat. 329) (relating to Delaware Water Gap National 
Recreation Area) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2), by striking out ``not exceed $10 per 
        trip'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``reflect the costs of 
        collection but shall not exceed $25 per trip''; and
            (2) by striking out paragraph (3).
    (b) Effective Date.--Paragraph (2) of such third undesignated 
paragraph shall be deemed to have remained in effect after the 
completion of construction of I-287, notwithstanding the provisions of 
paragraph (3) of such third undesignated paragraph.
                                 <all>
```
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






I, Rafael
Pinedo, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




(1)
            the
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Chancery Resources, Inc. for the period
      ended May 31, 2009 (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 presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Chancery
      Resources, Inc.




Dated:
November 19, 2009




/s/
      Rafael PinedoRafael
      PinedoPresident
      and Director(Principal
      Executive Officer)Chancery
      Resources, Inc.




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Chancery Resources, Inc. and will be
retained by Chancery Resources, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Denis M. Parham v. State

No. 25618.

January 9, 1952.

Hon. Joe D. Huffstutler, Judge Presiding.

*Doyle Pevehouse,*Corsicana, for appellant.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

*579MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, a fine of $100.00.

In view of our disposition of the case, a recitation of the facts will not be necessary.

Bill of Exception No. 1 shows the following question was asked a prosecuting witness by the counsel for the state:

> “Mr. Tucker, can you tell the jury approximately how many, what percentage of these people you observe that you determine to be intoxicated, and how many you just turn loose?”

The witness was permitted, over appellant’s objection, to answer as follows:

> “I wouldn’t think we have arrested one out of every fifty we actually observe and checked.”

We conclude that this was both an effective and improper method of bolstering the state’s witness. It would be only natural for a jury to conclude that an officer who arrested only one out of fifty suspects in driving-while-intoxicated cases was a fair and careful officer who resolved all doubt in favor of those he suspected of violating the law and should, therefore, be afforded the highest degree of credibility.

We say, in passing, that the record reflects that the officer in question, together with his partner, observed appellant in what they contended was a state of intoxication in a public place but made no effort to arrest him, as it was their duty to do; let him go to his automobile and drive away; and then followed and arrested him for driving while intoxicated. Such a practice on the part of peace officers should not be condoned. To do so would endanger the safety of those upon the highway in order that an officer might establish a more serious case.

For the error pointed out, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
2:09-md-02042-SFC Doc # 450 Filed 11/26/13 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 11084
2:09-md-02042-SFC Doc # 450 Filed 11/26/13 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 11085