alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 662.6 What regulations apply to this program? The following regulations apply to this program: ( a ) The regulations in this part 662; and
( b ) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) (34 CFR parts 75, 77, 81, 82, and 86).
( c ) (1) 2 CFR part 180 (OMB Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement)), as adopted at 2 CFR part 3485; and ( 2 ) 2 CFR part 200 (Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards), as adopted at 2 CFR part 3474.
(Authority: 22 U.S.C. 2452(b)(6))
[63 FR 46361, Aug. 31, 1998, as amended at 79 FR 76104, Dec. 19, 2014]
#### § 643.5 How long is a project period?

A project period under the Talent Search program is five years.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-11)

[75 FR 65775, Oct. 26, 2010]
### Law Office of Michael S. Truesdale, PLLC

Micha el S. Truesdale mike@truesdalelaw.com

Board Certified • Civil Appellate Law Texas Board of Legal Specialization

801 West Avenue , Suite 2 01 Austin, Texas 78701

512.482.8671 (ofc) • 866.847.8719 (fax) • www.truesdalelaw.com June 12, 2015

Honorable Jeffrey Kyle, Clerk Third Court of Appeals

P.O. Box 12547 Austin, TX 78711

Re: 03

- 14

- 00718

- CV, Citizens against the Landfill in Hempstead et al. v. Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, et al. Response to Appellants’ Motion to Reconsider Denial of Oral Argument

Dear Mr. Kyle:

Please file this letter with the pap ers in the above

- captioned case

.
On June 9, 2015, Appellants filed a motion to reconsider the denial of their request for oral argument. Pintail Landfill, LLC fil es this letter in response.

For the reasons set forth in its Brief of Appellee, Pintail opposes the Motion. While Appellants contend the case raises “issues of first impression”, they do not identify any such issues, nor do they explain why any such issu es are so complicated that they cannot be resolved based upon the briefing provided by top

- tier counsel at every stage in this case. Nor did they identify such issues or rely upon such a ground in their initial statement regarding oral argument. Finally, while Appellants contend that oral argument is needed to “bring clarity” to the written arguments, they do not explain what deficiency exists in the briefing that needs to be clarified. Pintail Landfill, LLC is willing to stand by its briefing without or al submission, as the case simply does not warrant anything more than submission on the briefs.

Accordingly, Pintail Landfill, LLC opposes the motion requesting reconsideration of the denial of oral argument, reserving its right to participate and present oral argument in the event the motion is granted.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Michael S. Truesdale

Michael S. Truesdale

SBN 00791825

Counsel for Appellee Pintail Landfill, LLC ACCEPTED
03-14-00718-CV

5666395
THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS
6/12/2015 7:15:20 PM
JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERKHonorable Jeffrey Kyle

June 12

, 2015 Page 2

801 West Ave., Suite 201, Austin, Texas 78701

512.482.8671 (ofc) • 866.847.8719 (fax) • www.truesdalelaw.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On June 12, 2015, the undersigned certifies that he served a copy of this letter on the following counsel by e

- service :

V. Blaire Peña Terry L. Scarborough

Michael L. Woodward Wesley P. McGuffey Hance Scarborough, LLP

400 We st 15 th Street, Suite 9500 Austin, TX 78701 Attorneys for Citizens Against the Landfill in Hempstead Monica M. Jacobs

Diana L. Nichols Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 2000 Austin, Texas 78701 Attorneys for City of Hempstead

Nancy Olinger, Assistant Attorney General Cynthia Woelk, Assistant Attorney General P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station (MC

- 066) Austin, TX 78711

- 2548 Attorneys for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

/s/ Michael S. Truesdale

Michael S. Truesdale
No. 89-1289.

#### Chapman *v.*Homco, Inc.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Ashley W. CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Rodney K. PRITCHARD; Mark C. Moore; Todd L. Lee; David Plowden; Ralph Q. Newman, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-6317.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted April 25, 2002.

Decided May 8, 2002.

Ashley W. Carter, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Ashley W. Carter appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2001) complaint. Carter’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Carter that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Carter failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. *See Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir.1985); *see also Thomas v. Arn,*474 U.S. 140,106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Carter has waived appellate re*109view by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
NO. 07-02-0198-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

SEPTEMBER 11, 2002

______________________________

ROBERT BRITTON, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 137TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2002-438951; HONORABLE CECIL PURYEAR, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.

On August 12 and August 27, 2002, appellant Robert Britton corresponded with the

Court indicating that he no longer wishes to prosecute his appeal. In a letter dated

September 5, 2002, appellant’s attorney concurred with appellant’s notice to dismiss the

appeal.

Without passing on the merits of the case, appellant’s motion for voluntary dismissal

is granted and the appeal is hereby dismissed. Tex. R. App. P. 42.2. Having dismissed
2

the appeal at appellant’s personal request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained and

our mandate will issue forthwith. 

Phil Johnson

 Justice

Do not publish.
Exhibit 31.2

SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 302(a) CERTIFICATION

Principal Financial Officer

I, Philippe Rainville, certify that:

1. 	I have reviewed this amended quarterly report of VisualMED Clinical Solutions Corp.;

2. 	Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. 	Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. 	The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) 	designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) 	evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) 	disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. 	The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) 	all deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) 	any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



|Date: July 20, 2005 | /s/ Philippe Rainville     
|------------------- | ---------------------------
|                    | Philippe Rainville         
|                    | Principal Financial Officer



---
#### § 342.8 Appeals.

Should the district director find that the certificate, document, or record was fraudulently or illegally obtained, he shall enter an order that it be cancelled and the certificate or document surrendered to the Service forthwith. Written notification of such action shall be given the respondent, with a copy of the decision, findings and decision of the district director, and he shall be informed of his right of appeal in accordance with the provisions of part 103 of this chapter.
Exhibit 99(a)


                          Independent Auditors' Report


The Board of Directors and Shareholders
Belmont Homes, Inc.:

We have  audited  the  accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Belmont Homes,
Inc.  and  subsidiaries  as  of  December  31, 1995  and  1996 and  the  related
consolidated  statements of income, shareholders' equity and cash flows for each
of  the  years  in  the  three  year  period  ended  December  31,  1996.  These
consolidated  financial  statements are  the responsibility of the management of
the Company.  Our responsibility is to express  an opinion on these consolidated
financial statements based on our audits.

We  conducted  our  audits  in  accordance  with  generally  accepted   auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and  perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test  basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial  statements. An audit also includes
assessing  the  accounting  principles  used and  significant estimates  made by
management, as well  as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the  consolidated financial statements referred to above present
fairly, in all material  respects, the financial position of Belmont Homes, Inc.
and subsidiaries  as of  December 31, 1995  and  1996, and the  results of their
operations and their cash flows for each of the  years in the  three-year period
ended  December 31, 1996,  in  conformity  with  generally  accepted  accounting
principles.

                                        /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Jackson, Mississippi                    KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
February 21, 1997
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7606
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus AKYAW AMAGYEI OWUSU, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Herbert N. Maletz, Senior Judge, sitting by designation. (CR-94-99-MJG, CA-95-2831-MJG) Submitted: January 23, 1996 Decided: February 9, 1996 Before WIDENER and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Akyaw Amagyei Owusu, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Owusu , Nos. CR-94-99-MJG; CA-95-2831-MJG (D. Md. Sept. 21, 1995).We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
906 A.2d 346

#### Stephen N. ABRAMS v. Linda H. LAMONE et al.

No. 142,

Sept. Term, 2005.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Aug. 29, 2006.

Stephen N. Abrams, Rockville, for appellant.

*331Andrew M. Dansicker (Joshua R. Treem, Schulman, Treem, Kaminkow, Gilden & Ravenell, P.A., Baltimore, on brief), William F. Brockman, Asst. Atty.; Gen. (J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Atty. Gen., on brief), for appellees.

*ORDER*

The Court having considered the motion of Stuart O. Simms, Candidate for Attorney General in the Democratic primary, to intervene or, in the alternative, for permission of the Court to submit an *amicus curiae*opposition to motion to modify order filed in the above captioned case, it is this 29th day of August, 2006,

ORDERED, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland, that the motion to intervene be, and it is hereby, denied, and it is further

ORDERED that the request for permission of the Court to submit an *amicus curiae*opposition to the motion to modify Order has been granted and considered.
§ 668.201 Definitions of terms used in this subpart. We use the following definitions in this subpart: ( a ) *Cohort.* Your cohort is a group of borrowers used to determine your cohort default rate. The method for identifying the borrowers in a cohort is provided in § 668.202(b).
( b ) *Data manager.* ( 1 ) For FFELP loans held by a guaranty agency or lender, the guaranty agency is the data manager.
( 2 ) For FFELP loans that we hold, we are the data manager.
( 3 ) For Direct Loan Program loans, the Direct Loan Servicer, as defined in 34 CFR 685.102, is the data manager.
( c ) *Days.* In this subpart, “days” means calendar days.
( d ) *Default.* A borrower is considered to be in default for cohort default rate purposes under the rules in § 668.202(c).
( e ) *Draft cohort default rate.* Your draft cohort default rate is a rate we issue, for your review, before we issue your official cohort default rate. A draft cohort default rate is used only for the purposes described in § 668.204.
( f ) *Entering repayment.* ( 1 ) Except as provided in paragraphs (f)(2) and (f)(3) of this section, loans are considered to enter repayment on the dates described in 34 CFR 682.200 (under the definition of “repayment period”) and in 34 CFR 685.207.
( 2 ) A Federal SLS loan is considered to enter repayment— ( i ) At the same time the borrower's Federal Stafford loan enters repayment, if the borrower received the Federal SLS loan and the Federal Stafford loan during the same period of continuous enrollment; or
( ii ) In all other cases, on the day after the student ceases to be enrolled at an institution on at least a half-time basis in an educational program leading to a degree, certificate, or other recognized educational credential.
( 3 ) For the purposes of this subpart, a loan is considered to enter repayment on the date that a borrower repays it in full, if the loan is paid in full before the loan enters repayment under paragraphs (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this section.
( g ) *Fiscal year.* A fiscal year begins on October 1 and ends on the following September 30. A fiscal year is identified by the calendar year in which it ends.
( h ) *Loan record detail report.* The loan record detail report is a report that we produce. It contains the data used to calculate your draft or official cohort default rate.
( i ) *Official cohort default rate.* Your official cohort default rate is the cohort default rate that we publish for you under § 668.205. Cohort default rates calculated under this subpart are not related in any way to cohort default rates that are calculated for the Federal Perkins Loan Program.
( j ) *We.* We are the Department, the Secretary, or the Secretary's designee.
( k ) *You.* You are an institution.
(Authority:20 U.S.C. 1082, 1085, 1094, 1099c)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 365

 361

 352

 340

 349

 361

 366

 371

 411

 435

 482

 502

 520

 545

 564

 597

 603

 561

 546

 665

 627

 583

 383

 381

 379

 377

 375

 374

 374

 373

 279

 281

 282

 289

 285

 290

 294

 293

 296

 297

 313

 316

 321

 329

 336

 339

 362

 346

 349

 430

 377

 380

 381

 379

 376

 375

 374

 374

 372

 370

 318

 313

 310

 310

 313

 320

 330

 332

 344

 359

 372

 377

 385

 394

 403

 432

 449

 426

 426

 516

 508

 441

 382

 380

 378

 376

 375

 374

 373

 372

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

NOVEMBER 2006 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: December 4, 2006

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 213

 209

 208

 208

 209

 214

 220

 221

 229

 238

 246

 249

 254

 259

 265

 283

 293

 279

 279

 335

 330

 289

 252

 251

 250

 248

 248

 247

 247

 246

TOTAL 11,388

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 21
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DAY HIGH

 1,086

 1,110

 1,064

 1,018

 1,002

 924

 826

 824

 857

 858

 897

 951

 1,004

 1,230

 1,224

 1,196

 1,155

 1,136

 1,099

 1,082

 1,066

 1,105

 1,115

 1,114

 1,095

 1,143

 1,099

 1,108

 1,048

 1,031

 994

 961

 879

 829

 817

 815

 817

 832

 854

 867

 858

 1,027

 1,163

 1,091

 1,006

 975

 977

 962

 965

 961

 937

 944

 947

 949

 950

 1,042

 1,059

 1,085

 1,038

 983

 929

 868

 820

 819

 835

 843

 880

 895

 938

 1,154

 1,202

 1,149

 1,071

 1,033

 1,028

 1,003

 1,005

 1,014

 1,016

 1,005

 1,002

 1,031

 1,006

 1,087

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

FEBRUARY 2014 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: June 6, 2014

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 670

 687

 657

 623

 590

 552

 523

 522

 532

 537

 560

 569

 596

 729

 759

 726

 678

 654

 651

 636

 637

 643

 644

 637

 635

 653

 638

 688

TOTAL 27,798

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 20
§ 222.54 What supplement-not-supplant requirement applies to this subpart? Funds provided under section 8003(d) may not supplant any State funds that were or would have been available to the LEA for the free appropriate public education of children counted under section 8003(d). ( a ) No section 8003(d) funds may be paid to an LEA whose per pupil State aid for federally connected children with disabilities, either general State aid or special education State aid, has been or would be reduced as a result of eligibility for or receipt of section 8003(d) funds, whether or not a State has a program of State aid that meets the requirements of section 8009 of the Act and subpart K of the regulations in this part. ( 1 ) A reduction in the per pupil amount of State aid for children with disabilities, including children counted under section 8003(d), from that received in a previous year raises a presumption that supplanting has occurred.
( 2 ) The LEA may rebut this presumption by demonstrating that the reduction was unrelated to the receipt of section 8003(d) funds.
( b ) In any State in which there is only one LEA, all funds for programs, and for early intervention services, for children with disabilities other than funds from Federal sources are considered by the Secretary to be local funds.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7703(d))
[60 FR 50778, Sept. 29, 1995, as amended at 80 FR 33166, June 11, 2015]
389 P.2d 405

#### Wilma L. BEERY, as Personal Representative and Sole Surviving Heir-at-Law of Douglas E. Beery, Deceased, Petitioner, v. Honorable George L. ZIMMERMAN, Judge of the Third Judicial District of the State of New Mexico, within and for Dona Ana County, Respondent.

No. 7581.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Feb. 26, 1964.

COMPTON, Chief Justice, and CARMODY, CHAVEZ and NOBLE, Justices, concurring; MOISE, Justice, being absent.

Ordered that in consideration of State v. White, 71 N.M. 342, 378 P.2d 379, and National American Life Insurance Company v. Baxter, 73 N.M. 94, 385 P.2d 956, the alternative writ of prohibition heretofore issued herein on February 12, 1964, be and the same is hereby made permanent.
EXHIBIT 23.1





Consent of Independent Accountants





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference
in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 33-6425, 33-14984, 33-33602, 33-42345, 33-69650, 33-58515, 33-64901, 333-15641, 333-39151, 333-43969, 333-46187, 333-53793, 333-57381, 333-73159, 333-75241, 333-84095 and 333-33888), on
Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-62128) and on Form S-4 (Registration No. 333-82695) of SunGard Data Systems Inc. of our report dated February 11, 2002 relating to the financial statements, which appears in the Annual Report to Stockholders, which is
incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.





/s/    PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP





Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania


March 26, 2002
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

DAY HIGH

 585

 625

 626

 590

 537

 524

 563

 582

 580

 568

 563

 496

 473

 444

 362

 420

 421

 454

 437

 438

 420

 396

 375

 364

 326

 323

 350

 413

 399

 426

 365

 340

 337

 313

 302

 284

 260

 245

 234

 227

 215

 213

 202

 188

 192

 193

 184

 181

 182

 183

 184

 185

 199

 204

 200

 201

 201

 201

 197

 200

 436

 427

 448

 414

 387

 354

 362

 360

 363

 356

 352

 322

 295

 248

 236

 249

 248

 246

 249

 247

 251

 242

 250

 250

 250

 254

 252

 248

 239

 242

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JUNE 2003 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: July 2, 2003

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 285

 280

 293

 272

 255

 235

 240

 238

 240

 236

 234

 215

 198

 169

 162

 170

 169

 168

 170

 169

 171

 166

 171

 171

 171

 173

 172

 169

 164

 166

TOTAL 9,077

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 21