Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of A.M., 786 P.2d 476, 478-79 (Colo.App.1989)(interpreting C.R.J.P. 4’s requirement that a dependency and neglect petition be filed with the district court within ten days from the day the child is taken into custody as a rule not affecting the court’s jurisdiction such that a failure to object in time to the child’s extended custody will waive the requirement). Instead, the time requirement of 19-1-108(5) is a procedural rule that creates a condition precedent to the party’s right to appeal the magistrate’s order. Because such procedures can be waived and because the Department failed to raise the requirements of 19 — 1—108(5) before the district court reviewed C.S.’s petition, the Department has waived any argument under 19-1-108(5). Horton v. Suthers, 43 P.3d 611, 617-618 (Colo.2002)(<HOLDING>); see also Ex Parte H.F., 843 So.2d 190, 191-92 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the district court and this court had subject matter jurisdiction over the defendants motion for modification of sentence based on amendment 706 even though the defendant filed the motion before march 3 2008 because the district court ruled on the motion after that date (B) holding that federal habeas corpus relief does not lie for errors of state law (C) holding that crim p 35s requirement that criminal defendants file a motion for relief with the state court before proceeding to habeas corpus implicates the doctrine of exhaustion of legal remedies and not the concept of subject matter jurisdiction and any argument based on crim p 35 is therefore waivable (D) holding that claims of ineffective assistance of counsel could not be resolved on the facts appearing in the record and that under such circumstances the defendants remedy is to file a petition for habeas corpus (E) holding that managing conservator while in texas to seek return of child by writ of habeas corpus may not be served with civil process and is subject to jurisdiction of court in which habeas corpus is pending and only for purpose of prosecuting writ of habeas corpus
Output (English): holding that the district court and this court had subject matter jurisdiction over the defendants motion for modification of sentence based on amendment 706 even though the defendant filed the motion before march 3 2008 because the district court ruled on the motion after that date