Want to refine your search results? Try our advanced search.
Search results 151 - 160 of 369 for WA 0821 7001 0763 (FORTRESS) Pintu Utama Baja Fortress Kartoharjo Magetan.
Search results 151 - 160 of 369 for WA 0821 7001 0763 (FORTRESS) Pintu Utama Baja Fortress Kartoharjo Magetan.
COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED March 13, 2007 A. John Voelker Acting Clerk of Court o...
. The trial court explained that “[t]he problem [wa]sn’t just what [Lay] did in July. Of course, that’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=28408 - 2007-03-12
. The trial court explained that “[t]he problem [wa]sn’t just what [Lay] did in July. Of course, that’s
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=28408 - 2007-03-12
[PDF]
COURT OF APPEALS
argued that he should be resentenced because at sentencing, “there [wa]s no discussion on the record
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=106275 - 2017-09-21
argued that he should be resentenced because at sentencing, “there [wa]s no discussion on the record
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=106275 - 2017-09-21
[PDF]
CA Blank Order
that “there [wa]s no Wisconsin case law directly on point on the issue, and neither [of the cases offered
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1072834 - 2026-02-03
that “there [wa]s no Wisconsin case law directly on point on the issue, and neither [of the cases offered
/ca/smd/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=1072834 - 2026-02-03
[PDF]
NOTICE
court, however, “kn[e]w who [Arrington wa]s.” It began its remarks by expressing its familiarity
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=35919 - 2014-09-15
court, however, “kn[e]w who [Arrington wa]s.” It began its remarks by expressing its familiarity
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=35919 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
who [Arrington wa]s.” It began its remarks by expressing its familiarity with the case generally
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=35919 - 2009-03-23
who [Arrington wa]s.” It began its remarks by expressing its familiarity with the case generally
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=35919 - 2009-03-23
[PDF]
NOTICE
and extended supervision. The prosecutor emphasized, however, “that Mr. Owens [wa]s the primary actor
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=28916 - 2014-09-15
and extended supervision. The prosecutor emphasized, however, “that Mr. Owens [wa]s the primary actor
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=28916 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
and extended supervision. The prosecutor emphasized, however, “that Mr. Owens [wa]s the primary actor in terms
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=28916 - 2007-06-26
and extended supervision. The prosecutor emphasized, however, “that Mr. Owens [wa]s the primary actor in terms
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=28916 - 2007-06-26
[PDF]
NOTICE
her probationary period,” or that “there [wa]s no showing that she won’t have the means to acquire
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=33621 - 2014-09-15
her probationary period,” or that “there [wa]s no showing that she won’t have the means to acquire
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=33621 - 2014-09-15
COURT OF APPEALS
,” or that “there [wa]s no showing that she won’t have the means to acquire employment when she is released on extended
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33621 - 2008-08-04
,” or that “there [wa]s no showing that she won’t have the means to acquire employment when she is released on extended
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.html?content=html&seqNo=33621 - 2008-08-04
[PDF]
NOTICE
is evidence of its excessiveness. We disagree. The trial court explained that “[t]he problem [wa]sn’t just
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=28408 - 2014-09-15
is evidence of its excessiveness. We disagree. The trial court explained that “[t]he problem [wa]sn’t just
/ca/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=28408 - 2014-09-15