alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Larry LADWIG *v.*Honorable Fred DAVIS, Judge

CR 98-350

10 S.W.3d 461

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered February 17, 2000

*Appellant,*pro se.

No response.

PER CURIAM.

In 1998, Larry Ladwig filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court contending that the Honorable Fred Davis, Circuit Judge, had failed to act within a reasona*416ble time on a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Criminal Procedure Rule 37 that had been filed in 1997.

Shortly thereafter, Judge Davis entered an order declaring Ladwig indigent and appointing counsel to represent him in the Rule 37 proceeding. The attorney was relieved in November 1998, and a second attorney was appointed. The second attorney was relieved in May 1999, and a third attorney was appointed for Ladwig. A hearing was set for September 2, 1999, on the Rule 37 petition.

When no order had been entered on the Rule 37 petition by November 2, 1999, one of our staff attorneys wrote to Judge Davis to ascertain the status of the matter. There was no response to the letter, and the staff attorney wrote to Judge Davis again on November 16, 1999. There was also no response to that letter, and Judge Davis’s office was contacted by telephone on December 8, 1999.

Judge Davis’s case coordinator said at that time that the hearing had indeed been held on September 2, 1999, and that the hearing record had been prepared and a ruling would be entered by January 1, 2000. On January 10, 2000, a second call was placed to Judge Davis’s office at which time the case coordinator said the order was being prepared and would likely be entered by February 4, 2000. (The compliance report filed by Judge Davis with the Administrative Office of the Courts for the period since the Rule 37 hearing indicated that the ruling would be entered by January 31, 2000.) On February 10, 2000, our staff attorney contacted the circuit clerk who reported that the *Ladwig*order had still not been entered.

 While we have consistently recognized that the independence of the bench in our judicial system requires that the trial judge control his docket and the disposition of matters filed, this is not to say that a motion or case should be delayed beyond a time reasonably necessary to dispose of it. *Eason v. Erwin,*300 Ark. 384, 781 S.W.2d 1 (1989). The Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3(B)(8), requires that a judge dispose of all judicial matters promptly. As Judge Davis has not responded to letters inquiring about the *Ladwig*petition, we must conclude that there is no good cause to justify the delay in ruling on the Rule 37 petition. The writ of mandamus is granted. We direct that Judge Davis enter a order on *417Ladwig’s Rule 37 petition within seven days of the date of this decision.

Petition granted.
[No. 44141-8-I.

Division One.

March 27, 2000.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. A.G., *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 98-8-08217-0, Laura Inveen, J., entered February 5, 1999. *Reversed*by unpublished opinion per Baker, J., concurred in by Cox and Appelwick, JJ.
SCPW-15-0000964

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

CHRISTOPHER GRINDLING, Petitioner,

vs.

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

and STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondents.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(CR. NOS. 15-1-0347(2), 15-1-0564(4), and 15-1-0968(3))

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of Petitioner Christopher

Grindling’s petition for a writ of mandamus, filed on December

30, 2015, and the record, it appears that Petitioner fails to

demonstrate that he has a clear and indisputable right to the

requested relief or that he lacks alternative means to seek

relief. Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to the requested

writ of mandamus. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204, 982

P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary

remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a

clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-15-0000964

20-JAN-2016

12:49 PM
means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the

requested action). Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus is denied.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the

appellate court shall process the petition for a writ mandamus

without payment of the filing fee. 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 20, 2016. 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

2
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 83 (Thursday, May 18, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1071-E1072]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          PUBLIC BROADCASTING

                                 ______

                         HON. MICHAEL G. OXLEY

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                         Thursday, May 18, 1995
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, 30 years ago, the creators of public 
broadcasting proposed funding it through a trust fund capitalized by 
various fees and taxes on commercial broadcasters. The proposal went 
nowhere.
  Like other government-funded agencies today, public broadcasting is 
being asked to [[Page E1072]] reinvent itself. The leaders of CPB, NPR, 
and PBS have been specifically challenged to come up with new sources 
of funding to replace tax dollars. Given the realities of the deficit, 
public broadcasters were strongly encouraged to be innovative and far-
reaching in their thinking, to take full advantage of the tremendous 
changes now taking place in the telecommunications marketplace and the 
resulting opportunities to get public broadcasting off the Federal 
dole.
  And what have they come up with? PBS has proposed a trust fund 
capitalized in part by fees from commercial broadcasters and in part by 
allocations from the Government's sale and auction of spectrum, and CPB 
says that ``no combination of cost savings and new sources of revenue 
can fully `replace' the Federal subsidy.''
  Anyway you look at them, the plans rely on Government funding, 
slightly repackaged and devoid of a marketplace solution. Where is the 
vision so desperately needed in order to reinvent public broadcasting 
for the 21st century? Where is the innovative thinking in proposing an 
idea that died 30 years ago? Why should commercial broadcasters 
subsidize public radio and television when they themselves are faced 
with an increasingly competitive marketplace?
  It is time for public broadcasting to reach beyond the tired 
proposals of bygone days and look for truly bold solutions for 
replacing Federal funding. It is time to look to the marketplace for 
ideas, alliances, and opportunities. Public broadcasting is a valuable 
network of local community institutions which has an intensely loyal 
audience. Surely this presents opportunities for more innovative 
solutions.
  I believe we can find a way to preserve the educational mission of 
public broadcasting in the context of today's telecommunications market 
without relying on Federal funding, whether is direct appropriations or 
redirecting Federal revenues into a trust fund. For public broadcasting 
to remain viable, its leaders must first recognize that the congress 
will cut the umbilical cord to the Federal Treasury.

                          ____________________
```
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 180 (Friday, September 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 57017]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23215]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER10-2453-000]


Icetec.com, Inc.; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based 
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

September 10, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Icetec.com, Inc.'s application for market-based rate authority, with an 
accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a 
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a 
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is September 30, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6c2a293e2f2302000502093f191c1c031e182c0a091e0f420b031a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="195f5c4b5a56777570777c4a6c6969766b6d597f7c6b7a377e766f">[email protected]</span></a> or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-23215 Filed 9-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Bassett & Bassett v. P. E. Hammond.

(No. 1224, Op. Book No. 3, p. 463.)

Appeal from Washington County.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§108. *Garnishment depends on judgment.*A garnishment cannot be maintained without a judgment against the debtor. But the want of such a judgment must he pleaded by the garnishee, if he would avail himself of it.

*44February 2, 1881.

§ 109. *Garnishment; extent of garnishee's liability.*An attaching creditor can hold the garnishee only to the extent of the debtor’s claim against the garnishee, and can acquire no rights against the latter except such as the debtor held; and as he is not permitted to place the garnishee in any worse condition than he would be if sued by the debtor, it follows necessarily, that, whatever defense the garnishee could urge against an action by the debtor for the debt in respect to which he is garnished, he may set up in bar of a judgment against him as garnishee. Thus, in this case, W., the debtor, was largely indebted to the garnishees when he deposited with them $175, to indemnify them as sureties upon an appeal bond which he contemplated executing in a case, but which was not executed, and, therefore, no liability was incurred by the garnishees. It was contended by H., the attaching creditor, that the $175 deposited with the garnishees was subject to his garnishment, but it was held otherwise, the court saying: “When the condition had lapsed upon which the $175 was to be held as a special deposit, the garnishees became simply the debtors of W., and, had he sued them for the money, they had an undoubted right to set off his indebtedness to them *pro tanto.*The deposit of the money in the hands of the garnishees was intended in no wise as a deposit for the plaintiff’s benefit. He has no equitable claim upon it.”

Reversed and remanded.
News United States Air Force
 Wedgetail Trilateral Joint Vision Statement signed at Royal International Air TattooPublished July 17, 2023
                        
                        
                        Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **RAF FAIRFORD, United Kingdom (AFNS) --**
                A joint vision statement has been signed between the heads of the Royal Air Force, Royal Australian Air Force, and the United States Air Force, setting out their mutual intent to work collaboratively on the development of their countries’ Wedgetail Airborne Early Warning and Control aircraft.Air chiefs sign Wedgetail Trilateral Joint Vision StatementRoyal Australian Air Force Chief Air Marshal Robert Chipman, U.K. Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton, and U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. CQ Brown, Jr. pose for a photo after an E-7A Wedgetail Joint Vision trilateral statement signing during the Royal International Air Tattoo at RAF Fairford, United Kingdom, July 14, 2023. Brown attended RIAT to engage with Air and Space Chiefs from other nations and demonstrate the Department of the Air Force’s commitment to its allies and partners. (U.S. Air Force photo by Senior Airman Jason W. Cochran)
            
            
            Photo Details /
                Download Hi-Res

    










**Gen. CQ Brown, Jr.**, and the Chief of the Royal Australian Air Force, Air Marshal Robert Chipman, signed the document at a ceremony held during the Royal International Air Tattoo at RAF Fairford in Gloucester.
The trilateral agreement is a commitment by the three nations to work together for mutual benefit through cooperation relating to Wedgetail capability development, evaluation and testing, interoperability, sustainment, operations, training, and safety.
“The signing of this this joint vision statement by our three Air Forces is an exciting opportunity that will allow us to work collaboratively to develop our Wedgetail fleets to ensure that they remain ready to provide Airborne Early Warning & Control as the threats and challenges we face change,” Knighton said.
“Collaboration and interoperability are critical to our warfighting advantage. Signing this joint vision statement represents another step in the long-term, enduring commitment we have to the future and to the security of our three countries,” Brown said. “The relationship between the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States is more robust than ever, and we share a mutual understanding of the challenges we face in the air domain and the need to address them.”
“This joint vision statement is a testament to the close relationship shared historically by our three Air Forces,” said Chipman. “I look forward to continuing our joint interests in this versatile and impressive capability.”
The Wedgetail is the most capable and effective airborne early warning and control platform in operation today.LR 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



AUKUS 



Royal International Air Tattoo 



RIAT 



CSAF 



Air Force Chief of Staff 



Airborne Early Warning & Control 



Wedgetail 



AWACS
Exhibit 32.1








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Report of AXIM Biotechnologies, Inc., a Nevada Corporation, (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the Year ended December 31, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:





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 results of operations of the Company.








/s/ Dr. George Anastassov


Dr. George Anastassov


Chief Executive Officer


Chief Financial Officer


Principal Accounting Officer





April 14, 2016
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk August 6, 2009

d0720 

# Order

August 6, 2009

138852

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 138852 COA: 289768 Genesee CC: 06-019287-FH RODNEY WAYNE PHILLIPS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the March 18, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT made effective the 27th day of November, 2003.

AMONG:

     SHANNON INVESTMENTS LTD. a corporation incorporated under the laws of the
     Province of Alberta, and having an office at the City of Calgary, Alberta
     (herein called the "Purchaser")

                                     - and -

     SHANNON INTERNATIONAL RESOURCES INC.. a corporation incorporated under the
     laws of the State of Nevada, U.S.A., (herein called "Shannon")

                                     - and -

     LOGICAL SEQUENCE INCORPORATED., a corporation incorporated under the laws
     of the Province of Ontario, (herein called "Logical")



                               ADDENDUM AGREEMENT
                               ------------------

WHEREAS the parties hereto entered into a Share Purchase Agreement dated the
30th day of September, 2003 (the "Agreement") a copy of which is attached hereto
for reference; and

WHEREAS the parties hereto wish to amend the Agreement to with respect to the
effective date and closing of the Agreement.

NOW THEREFORE THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

1.       The effective date of the Agreement of September 30th , 2003 is hereby
         rescinded.

2.       That Logical Sequence Incorporated shall engage Chartered Public
         Accountants to audit the financial statements of Logical Sequence
         Incorporated for it fiscal year ended March 31, 2003 as soon as
         practical.

3.       That the revised effective date of the Agreement shall be December 31,
         2003 for purposes of consolidation of the financial statements subject
         to closing of the agreement.

4.       That the closing of the Agreement shall be conditioned upon receipt of
         said audited financial statements.

5.       That all terms and conditions of the Agreement other than as set forth
         above shall remain unchanged and that the purchase and sale transaction
         shall be consummated in accordance with the true intention of the
         parties.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have duly executed this Agreement as of
the date first above written.

                              SHANNON INVESTMENTS LTD.

                              Per: /s/ Blair Coady
                                  ----------------------
                              Blair Coady
                              Authorized Signing Officer

                              SHANNON INTERNATIONAL RESOURCES INC.

                              Per: /s/ Blair Coady
                                   ----------------------
                              Blair Coady
                              Authorized Signing Officer

                              LOGICAL SEQUENCE INCORPORATED

                              Per: /s/ James G. Menzies
                                   ----------------------
                              James G. Menzies
                              Authorized Signing Officer
News United States Air Force
 319th Reconnaissance Wing to field E-11 mission at Robins AFBPublished June 30, 2021
                        
                        By 319th Reconnaissance Wing Public Affairs
                **GRAND FORKS AIR FORCE BASE, N.D. (AFNS) --**
                The Air Force announced plans recently that the **319th Reconnaissance Wing** at **Grand Forks Air Force Base** will now provide command and control support for the Air Force’s E-11 **Battlefield Airborne Control Node** aircraft mission.
Under the proposed plan, which is contingent on Congressional approval of the retirement of four **E-8 JSTARS** at **Robins AFB**, Georgia, an **E-11** squadron at Robins AFB would be a geographically separated unit reporting to the 319th RW.
"We're excited to bring the E-11 BACN mission into the 319th (RW)'s portfolio of world-class Airmen and assets," said Col. Timothy Curry, 319th RW commander. "The E-11 brings strategic capability and advantages for the joint force which is the mission of the 319th RW.”
As part of its fiscal year 2020 budget request, the Air Force requested to begin retiring four E-8 aircraft next year, which would make way for the new E-11 BACN mission at Robins AFB.
E-11 BACN aircraft and a squadron of active-duty personnel will enable communications support to the joint force on the modern battlefield.
Pending the passing of the National Defense Authorization Act with provisions for JSTARS retirement, the E-11 mission is expected to stand up next year.
The Air Force already possesses three E-11s, and will continue to take delivery until the full fleet inventory is achieved.
Nine E-11 BACN aircraft and a squadron of approximately 290 active-duty personnel will execute a mission with a very high-ops tempo, enabling communications support to the joint force on the modern battlefield.
“As the Air Force looks to the future, we expect to be challenged around the world by China and Russia,” said Acting Secretary of the Air Force **John P. Roth**. “Those threats require new solutions, which means divesting legacy platforms like the JSTARS. However, our intent is to capitalize on the existing expertise at Team Robins as we bring on these new missions. These missions will play a vital role in how we achieve decision superiority across all domains.”LR 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



Grand Forks AFB 



Robins AFB 



new mission 



E-11 



One Air Force 



ACOL 



319th RW 



C2 



Command and Control 



Battlefield Airborne Control Node 



BACN 



E-8 JSTARS 



16th AF 



Air Mobility Command