alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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.

RICHARD JOSEPH MONAGHAN, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 17-0677 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Navajo County

No. CR 201200360

The Honorable Robert J. Higgins, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Navajo County Attorney’s Office, Holbrook

By Bradley W. Carlyon

Counsel for Respondent

Richard Joseph Monaghan, Kingman

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jon W. Thompson, Judge Peter B. Swann, and Judge James 

P. Beene delivered the decision of the Court.

FILED 4-24-2018
STATE v. MONAGHAN

Decision of the Court

2

P E R C U R I A M:

¶1 Petitioner Richard Joseph Monaghan 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 the 

petitioner’s second successive 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, 576-77, ¶ 19 (2012). It is the petitioner’s 

burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion in denying the 

petition. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011).

¶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 that petitioner has not shown an abuse of discretion. 

¶4 Accordingly, we grant review and deny relief.
### IN THE CO URT OF CR IMINAL APPEALS OF T ENN ESSEE AT JACKSON Aug us t 6 , 20 13

STATE OF TENNESS EE v . RICKY LE E NELS ON

A p p e a l f r o m t h e C r i m i n a l C o u r t f o r S h e l b y C o u n t y N o . 8 9

- 0 4 3 8 4 , 8 9

- 0 4 3 8 5 & 8 9 J
. R o b e r t C a r t e r , J r . , J u d g e

N o . W 2 0 1 2

- 0 0 7 4 1

- C C A

- R 3

- C D

- F i l e d J a n u a r y 2 7 , 2 0 1 4

T H O M A S T

. W O O D A LL , J

. , c o n c u r r i n g o p i n i o n

.
I w r i t e s e p a r a t e l y t o e x p r e s s m y o p i n i o n t h a t t h e r e s u l t o f t h i s c a s e i s m a n d a t e d b y t h e f o l l o w i n g l a n g u a g e i n P o w e r s v

. S t a t e , 3 4 3 S

. W

. 3 d 3 6 , 5 5 ( T e n n

. 2 0 1 1 ) :

I n e v i t a b l y , d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r a p e t i t i o n e r s h o u l d b e a f f o r d e d D N A t e s t i n g i n v o l v e s s o m e c o n j e c t u r e , a s “ i t i s d i f

f i c u l t t o a n t i c i p a t e w h a t r e s u l t s D N A t e s t i n g m a y p r o d u c e i n a d v a n c e o f a c t u a l t e s t i n g

. ” S t a t e v

. P e t e r s o n , 3 6 4 N

. J

. S u p e r

. 3 8 7 , 8 3 6 A

. 2 d 8 2 1 , 8 2 7 ( N

. J

. S u p e r

. C t

. A p p

. D i v
. 2 0 0 3 )

. U n d e r s e c t i o n 4 0

- 3 0

- 3 0 4 ( 1 ) o f t h e A c t , h o w e v e r , w e b e g i n w i t h t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t D N A a n a l y s i s w i l l p r o v e t o b e e x c u l p a t o r y
. P a y n e v

. S t a t e , W 2 0 0 7

- 0 1 0 9 6

- C C A

- R 3

- P D , 2 0 0 7 W L 4 2 5 8 1 7 8 , a t * 1 0 ( T e n n

. C r i m

. A p p

. D e c

. 5 , 2 0 0 7 ) ; S h u t t l e v

. S t a t e , N o

. E 2 0 0 3

- 0 0 1 3 1

- C C A

- R 3

- P C , 2 0 0 4 W L 1 9 9 8 2 6 , a t * 5 ( T e n n

. C r i m

. A p p

. F e b

. 3 , 2 0 0 4 )

. A s o n e j u r i s d i c t i o n h a s r u l e d , “ t h e t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d p o s t u l a t e w h a t e v e r r e a l i s t i c a l l y p o s s i b l e t e s t
r e s u l t s w o u l d b e m o s t f

a v o r a b l e t o [ t h e ] d e f

e n d a n t i n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r h e h a s e s t a b l i s h e d ” t h e r e a s o n a b l e p r o b a b i l i t y r e q u i r e m e n t u n d e r t h a t j u r i s d i c t i o n ’ s D N A t e s t i n g s t a t u t e

. P e t e r s o n , 8 3 6 A

. 2 d a t 8 2 7

. W e h o l d t h e s a m e t o b e t r u e u n d e r T e n n e s s e e ’ s A c t

.
I d

.
W h i l e w e r e v i e w t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s d e c i s i o n u n d e r a n a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n s t a n d a r d , T h o m a s E d w a r d K o t e w a v

. S t a t e , N o

. E 2 0 1 1

- 0 2 5 2 7

- C C A

- R 3

- P C , 2 0 1 2 T e n n

. C r i m

. A p p

. L E X I S 8 7 2 , a t * 1 5 ( T e n n

. C r i m

. A p p

. O c t

. 2 6 , 2 0 1 2 ) , i n m y o p i n i o n t h e t r i a l c o u r t ’ s w i d t h
o f d i s c r e t i o n h a s b e e n e x t r e m e l y n a r r o w e d

.

__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ T H O M A S T

. W O O D A L L , J U D G E
#### Ex Parte Ernest Herring

No. 25719.

February 6, 1952.

Relator represented himself.

*Willis Gresham,*Assistant Attorney General, and *George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

Relator alleges as a ground for the granting of his application for writ of habeas corpus that on January 18, 1940, he plead guilty in a capital case in Bell County, waived a jury, land was sentenced by the trial court for a term of not less than two nor more than ninety-nine years in the state penitentiary.

It is shown herein by an instrument filed by the general manager of the state penitentiary that relator has heretofore been convicted in Bell, Bosque, Madison and Lampasas Counties, as well as the Bell County conviction, and that at the present time relator is still serving portions of the convictions in other counties; that he has approximately seven years and nine months to serve on a conviction from Harris County.

*625Relator is not entitled to relief at this time. The validity of the Bell County judgment does not affect relator’s incarceration under the Harris County conviction. Only if relator’s confinement in the penitentiary rested alone upon the Bell County judgment would this court order his discharge thereunder. See Ex parte Padgett, 230 S.W. (2d) 813; Ex parte Neisler, 126 Tex. Cr. R. 26, 69 S.W. (2d) 422; Ex parte Kemp 154 Tex. Cr. R. 633, 230 S.W. (2d) 232; Ex parte Richardson, 230 S.W. (2d) 538.

The writ of habeas corpus is refused.
Exhibit 10.34


 


March 20, 2014


Ben Chen 





 


		Re:	Offer of Employment



		Re:	Revised to reflect the full time start date, no signature required.



 


Dear Ben,


 


I would like to formally extend you an offer of employment as
followed:


 


Starting date:  4/1/2014, starting 20 hours
per week till May 31st, 2014.  Beginning June 23rd as a full time employee.


Title:  Senior
VP of Global Regulatory Affairs and Quality Assurance


Location: currently at 1616 Eastlake Avenue East, Seattle,
WA 98102


Duties: See attached


Starting salary:  $280,000
per annum, paid twice a month.


Report to: CEO


Health and Dental Insurance:  25% of premium
paid by employee starting June 1st, 2014.


Equity:  An option to 300,000 shares of Atossa
Genetics common stock at the closing stock price on the later of the date approved by the board or your first date of employment
which vests over four years of employment, 25% at the end of the first year and quarterly after that.  The option is
subject to the terms and condition of our option plan.


Bonus:  Up to 20% of prorated annual salary
for the months worked based on the performance review on goals and objectives set following employment.


PTO:  120 hour of accrual paid time off per
year, subject to reset annually on March 31st the following year or per company policy.


Benefit:  a 4% matching 401k with a 365 day
waiting period.  


Relocation: per relocation policy attached.


Parking: paid parking


Sick/Holiday:  per Seattle Paid Sick Day policy,
and 10 holidays per Atossa holiday calendar.


 


Your employment is contingent upon successful completion of
reference checks and a background investigation.  


 


Candidate is not currently nor in the past year
employed with, nor does Candidate have any consultancy or other relationship with, any distributor of  Atossa Genetics,
Inc.’s products and services nor any competitor of Atossa Genetics, Inc.  Candidate is not a party to any agreement
or is otherwise restricted in accepting an employment or consultancy position with Atossa Genetics, Inc.


 


This is an At Will employment position, and the first three
months of your employment will be an introductory period to evaluate if your skill set and performance meet the requirements.



 


We truly look forward to meeting you and to working with you
to help us build Atossa into a great company.  


 


	Regards,	 
	 	 
	/S/ Steve Quay	 
	 	 
	Steven C. Quay, MD, PhD, FCAP	 
	CEO and President	 
	cc:  Shu-Chih Chen, PhD, Chief Scientific Officer, HR Director 


 





1616 Eastlake Avenue East, Suite 510  •  Seattle,
Washington  •  98102


T: 206.588.0256 F: 206.430.1288


www.AtossaGenetics.com
#### Ex Parte Don M. Black

Nos. 25,947-25,948.

June 25, 1952.

*468Hon. T. C. Chadwick, Judge Presiding.

*Florence & Florence,*Gilmer, for appellant.

*Murray L. Harris,*County Attorney, *James L. Hartsfield, Jr.,*Assistant County Attorney, both of Quitman, and *George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

MORRISON, Judge.

These are appeals from orders of the district court of Wood County denying appellant bail in two murder cases pending against him, one for killing Jack Gilliam and another for killing his wife, on the docket of said court.

At the hearing, the state produced witnesses who saw the appellant drive up to Gilliam’s house and shoot Gilliam at close range with a shotgun and continue to shoot after Gilliam called upon him to desist. Another witness testified that, immediately after he heard certain shots fired, he saw the appellant leaving; and the appellant told him that he had “killed his wife and hoped to hell he killed Jack.” The witness then went where appellant directed him and found appellant’s wife dead from gun shot wounds.

We have read the record carefully, as is our custom, but refrain from writing extensively on the facts.

Able counsel for both the state and the appellant have been helpful to this court in reaching a decision in this matter.

Appellant says his case is parallel to the case before this court in Ex parte Varnado, 152 Tex. Cr. R. 456, 215 S. W. (2d) 165. In that case, the relator below testified at the hearing and told of improper relations between his wife and White, both of whom he was charged with having killed. By doing so, he put his defense in the record for this court to review. Such is not the case before us here. It will be further observed that one member of the present court saw fit to enter his dissent to the opinion granting bail in that case.

*469Appellant contends that, since the killings were unexplained and since the state has not shown malice, he is entitled to bail.

We have concluded that malice has been shown such as would warrant the trial court in refusing bail.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Exhibit 99.36

          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 GCI, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ronald A. Duncan,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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) 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.


Date:  November 8, 2002                /s/ Ronald A. Duncan
                                       Ronald A. Duncan
                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                       GCI, Inc.
<PAGE>
          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 GCI, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John M. Lowber, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, 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) 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.



Date:  November 8, 2002                /s/ John M. Lowber
                                       John M. Lowber
                                       Chief Financial Officer
                                       GCI, Inc.
Exhibit 32

    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 GCI, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ronald A. Duncan,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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) 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.


Date:  November 9, 2004                /s/
                                       Ronald A. Duncan
                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                       GCI, Inc.


                                       1
<PAGE>
    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 GCI, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John M. Lowber, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, 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) 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.



Date:  November 9, 2004                /s/
                                       John M. Lowber
                                       Chief Financial Officer
                                       GCI, Inc.


                                       2
#### People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tobey Boone, a/k/a Tobey Richardson, Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 50,582. (Abstract of Decision.)

First District, First Division.

October 31, 1966.

J. Tobias Dixon, of Chicago, for appellant; Daniel P. Ward, State’s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane, Walter J. Parrish, Jr., and Thomas M. Burn-ham, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee.

Opinion by JUSTICE MURPHY. Not to be published in full.
#### Virgil Atwell MOTLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles E. THOMPSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 02-7516.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 6, 2003.

Decided March 13, 2003.

Virgil Atwell Motley, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Virgil Atwell Motley seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Motley has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. *See Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039^0, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. *See*28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in *589the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. (Company) for the period ended December 31, 2006 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 1934, 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.

A signed original of this written 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 or its staff upon request.



|                      |  |  |  |     |  |                               |  | 
|--------------------- |  |  |  | --- |  | ----------------------------- |  | 
|Dated: March 30, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Charles R. Howell IV      |  | 
|                      |  |  |  |     |  | Charles R. Howell IV          |  | 
|                      |  |  |  |     |  | Chief Executive Officer       |  | 
|                      |  |  |  |     |  | (Principal Executive Officer) |  |
ovv-ex1064_5349.htm



Exhibit 10.64

AMENDMENT NUMBER 5

ENCANA CORPORATION CANADIAN PENSION PLAN

The Encana Corporation Canadian Pension Plan (the “Plan”) is hereby amended as follows:

Effective:  January 24, 2020:


	
1.
	
All references to "Encana Corporation Canadian Pension Plan" in the Plan, with the exception of Section 1.2.1 of the Plan, are deleted and replaced with "Ovintiv Canadian Pension Plan".





	
2.
	
All references to "Encana Pensionable Service" in the Plan are deleted and replaced with "Ovintiv Pensionable Service".





	
3.
	
Section 1.1.10 of the Plan is amended by deleting the words "Encana Corporation" and replacing them with the words "Ovintiv Canada ULC".





	
4.
	
The Plan is amended by deleting Section 1.1.13 in its entirety and replacing it with the following: 





	
 
	
1.1.13
	
"Company" means Ovintiv Canada ULC and any affiliated or subsidiary company or any partnership which is majority owned by Ovintiv Canada ULC, its affiliated and subsidiary companies, or any of them, and which is designated as a participating company or partnership by Ovintiv Canada ULC or is deemed to be a participating company under Revenue Rules. Notwithstanding the foregoing, where any reference in the Plan is made to any action to be taken, consent, approval or opinion to be given, discretion or decision to be exercised by the Company, "Company" means Ovintiv Canada ULC, acting through the Board of Directors, or any person duly authorized by the Board of Directors, Board Committee or Management Pension Committee, as applicable, for the purposes of the Plan.





	
5.
	
The Plan is amended by deleting Section 1.2.1 in its entirety and replacing it with the following:





	
 
	
1.2.1
	
Plan Establishment 




Effective January 1, 2003, the Retirement Pension Plan for Employees of PanCanadian Energy Corporation (the "PEC Plan") was amended, restated and renamed as the Encana Corporation Canadian Pension Plan (the "Encana Plan"), and effective January 24, 2020, the Encana Plan was renamed as the Ovintiv Canada Canadian Pension Plan (this "Plan"). Also effective January 1, 2003, the Alberta Energy Company Ltd. Retirement Plan (the "AEC Plan") was merged into this Plan. The primary purpose of the Plan is to provide periodic payments to Participants of the Plan after retirement and until death in respect of their service as Participants. The purpose of the Plan is also to assist Participants in providing for their long-term retirement income.
#### Fentrice BURRIS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 01-36110.

D.C. No. CV-00-01789-ALA(CO).

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*974Submitted March 3, 2003.*

Decided March 21, 2003.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, FERNANDEZ and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

We AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. Substantial evidence supports the administrative law judge’s step four determination that the claimant is not disabled because she has the residual functional capacity to perform past relevant work. Because we affirm the denial of benefits at step four, we need not reach the question whether the ALJ erred at step five in the sequential analysis.

The ALJ provided specific, cogent reasons for rejecting Ms. Burris’ subjective pain testimony and these reasons are both clear and convincing. *See Lester v. Chater,*81 F.3d 821, 834 (9th Cir.1996) (as amended). As a result, the ALJ was not required to include Ms. Burris’ subjective limitations in the hypothetical posed to the vocational expert. *See Osenbrock v. Apfel,*240 F.3d 1157, 1164-65 (9th Cir.2001). The ALJ also was not required to take account of any psychological factors that may exacerbate Ms. Burris’ pain, “because pain is subjective and depends on the credibility of the claimant.” *Thomas v. Barnhart,*278 F.3d 947, 959 (9th Cir.2002).

The ALJ did not err in finding that Ms. Burris has past relevant work experience as a community resource aide. The record supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Ms. Burris’ work as a community resource aid qualifies as substantial gainful activity. *See Lewis v. Apfel,*236 F.3d 503, 515 (9th Cir.2001). Moreover, there is no support in the record for Ms. Burris’ claim that she worked too briefly to learn how to perform the job properly.

The ALJ did err, however, in failing to consider Mr. Burris’ written questionnaire answers, which corroborate his wife’s subjective symptoms to some extent. *See Lewis,*236 F.3d at 511; *Schneider v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin.,*223 F.3d 968, 976 (9th Cir.2000); *Dodrill v. Shalala,*12 F.3d 915, 918-19 (9th Cir.1993). Nevertheless, this error was harmless because substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s conclusion that Ms. Burris has the residual functional capacity to perform past relevant work. *See Schneider,*233 F.3d at 975.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.