alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Prior to the  conclusion of OCR’s investigation, the Schenectady City School District (District) agreed to resolve the issues in this compliance review concerning the referral and pre-referral of black and Latino students for special education evaluation. The District agreed to retain an expert to examine the root causes of the overrepresentation of black and Latino students in special education in the  district and make recommendations; develop and implement a plan to expand the district’s universal screening process; provide training on screening methods and intervention processes and strategies; ensure that each school implements a systematic, team-based means of providing intervention strategies in the regular education classroom for students experiencing academic or behavior difficulties; develop written policies and procedures that include the extent to which informal classroom interventions should be attempted prior to referral to the building-level teams, circumstances for referring students to the teams, and oversight to ensure consistency in each school; determine whether eligibility and placement decisions for current students were appropriate; if not, take corrective action, including providing compensatory and/or remedial services to address deficits resulting from the improper placement; utilize tests and other evaluation materials, as appropriate, in the dominant language of English language learner students who have, or are suspected of having, disabilities; and annually evaluate the effectiveness of screening, intervention, evaluation, and placement processes, specifically looking at data related to the provision of team-prescribed interventions and teacher referrals  of students to the building-level team.
Opinion issued November 10, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-16-00857-CR

———————————

IN RE JULIO FRAN CERVANTES-SEGURA, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Julio Fran Cervantes-Segura, proceeding pro se and incarcerated, has 

filed an “Application For Writ of Mandamus” in this Court. Relator seeks to compel 

the respondent trial court judge to set aside his direct appeal proceedings until a 

hearing can be held on his pro se motion for new trial.

1

 

1 The underlying case is The State of Texas v. Julio Fran Cervantes-Segura, Cause 

No. 1445818, pending in the 180th District Court, Harris County, Texas, The 

Honorable Catherine Evans presiding. This Court recently denied relator’s pro se 

pre-trial criminal mandamus petition that arose from the same underlying trial court 

cause number 1445818. See In re Julio Fran Cervantes-Segura, No. 01–16–00647–
Generally, to be entitled to mandamus relief in a criminal matter, a relator 

must establish both that he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged 

harm, and that what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act, not involving a 

discretionary or judicial decision. See Bowen v. Carnes, 343 S.W.3d 805, 810 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2011) (orig. proceeding) (citation omitted). If the relator fails to satisfy 

either aspect of this two-part test, the relief should be denied. See id.

Here, because relator’s petition refers to his direct appeal proceedings, he 

admits that he has already appealed at the time of filing this petition. Although 

relator’s petition did not refer to when he filed his notice of appeal, “[w]e may take 

judicial notice of our own records involving the same parties and subject matter.” 

Douglas v. Am. Title Co., 196 S.W.3d 876, 877 n.1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 

2006, no pet.) (citation omitted). Following a jury trial in which he was found guilty 

of aggravated robbery, the trial court assessed relator’s punishment at ten years’ 

confinement on September 23, 2016, in the underlying trial court cause number 

1445818. On October 5, 2016, the district clerk assigned relator’s September 23, 

2016 timely notice of appeal from this judgment of conviction to this Court. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). The trial court certified appellant’s right of appeal 

because this was not a plea-bargain case and appellant has a right of appeal. See id. 

 

CR, 2016 WL 6518673, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Sept. 15, 2016, orig. 

proceeding) (per curiam) (mem. op., not designated for publication).
25.2(a)(2)(B). The Clerk of this Court assigned relator’s direct appeal to appellate 

cause number 01–16–00793–CR, which remains pending. Thus, relator has an 

adequate appellate remedy for the harms alleged in this petition.

Accordingly, we construe the application as a petition for a writ of mandamus, 

but deny the petition because relator has an adequate appellate remedy. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.8(a); see also Bowen, 343 S.W.3d at 810.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Higley, and Lloyd.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Exhibit
23.1
 
 **INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM CONSENT**
 
 
 The Board
of Directors
 PhotoMedex,
Inc. and Subsidiaries:
 
 We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Form 10-K for the years ended
December 2004, the registration statements (Nos. 333-58450, 333-72580,
333-91926, 333-106605 and 333-120921) on Form S-3, in the registration
statements (Nos. 333-100609 and 333-121864) on Form S-4, and in the registration
statements (Nos. 333-30298 and 333-114181) on Form S-8 of PhotoMedex, Inc. of
our report dated March 10, 2005, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets
of PhotoMedex, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2004, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for
the years then ended, which report appears in the December 31, 2004 annual
report on Form 10-K of PhotoMedex, Inc.
 
 
 /s/
Amper, Politziner & Mattia, P. C.
 
 Edison,
New Jersey
 March 14,
2005
 
   E-23.1
#### Marcia Ben Ami Michel v. Yitshaq Ben Ami.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied without prejudice, however, to a renewal thereof upon the argument or submission of the appeal. Concur — Botein, P. J., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Bergan, JJ.
----

----

| (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/      Matthew K.      Rose           |   | /s/     Thomas N.      Hund           |   |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Matthew      K. Rose                                                                                                    |   | Thomas      N. Hund                                                                                         |   |
|   | Chairman,      President and Chief Executive Officer                                                                    |   | Executive      Vice President and Chief Financial Officer                                                   |   |

----

----
400 MARYLAND AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20202

www.ed.gov

The Department of Education's mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global 

competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Office of Postsecondary Education

2023 Negotiated Rulemaking Student Debt Relief Committee

Session 2, November 6-7, 2023

Agenda

November 6, 2023

I. Welcome, Opening Remarks, Administrative Business

II. Old Business Wrap Up from Session 1 

III. Review of Draft Amendatory Regulatory Text

IV. Lunch Break

V. Continuation of Draft Review of Amendatory Text

VI. 10 Minute Break

VII. Continuation of Review of Amendatory Text

VIII. Wrap Up and Questions

IX. Public Comment

November 7, 2023

I. Welcome, Opening Remarks, Administrative Business

II. Continuation of Review of Draft Amendatory Regulatory Text 

III. Lunch Break

IV. Hardship Discussion

V. 10 Minute Break

VI. Public Comment
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2011

- 0916 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2011

-NM

- 127

- AD If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into a nd then out of the changed cell

. **Estimated Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- h ours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

c ost ( @ $8 5 /h our) Part s Cost Total Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U

. S

. Fleet


### Installation 72.0 $6,120.0 0 $1,080 $7,200.00 

### 13 $93,600.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 .00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $93,600 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $
**On**
**- Condition Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- h ours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

( @ $8 5 /hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### Special considerations for Economic Anal**ysis** ( Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant r egulatory action”? YES * NO
* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES * NO
* Explanation: **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for either a Yes or No answer. YES NO Explanation: **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES * NO


### * Explanation 

### :
EXHIBIT 23.1

----

 

CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements pertaining to the 1991 Employee Stock Plan, the 1999 Stock Plan, the 1996 Stock Option/Stock Incentive Plan, the 1994 Stock Option Plan, the 1990 Stock Option/Stock Incentive Plan, and the Genentech, Inc. Tax Reduction Investment Plan, and the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-37072) related to resales of common shares deliverable upon the exchange of Liquid Yield Option Notes, and in the related Prospectuses, of Genentech, Inc. of our report dated January 15, 2002 (except for the note titled Subsequent Event, as to which the date is February 26, 2002), with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Genentech, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2001.

 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Palo Alto, California
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF CASCADE NATURAL GAS CORPORATION
INCLUDED IN THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31,
2000, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      282,363
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                        677
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          53,698
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                         7,068
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 343,806
<COMMON>                                        11,045
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       97,380
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             18,174
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 126,599
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               62
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           125,000
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  92,145
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  343,806
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      162,621
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            10,064
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     129,781
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     129,781
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         32,840
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                 292
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  23,068
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         5,560
<NET-INCOME>                                    17,508
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          2
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   17,506
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         5,302
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          25,674
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.58


</TABLE>
##### 



EXHIBIT
10.60
 
 Purpose:
  Definitions:
 Acquisition
 Closing Date
 Cumulative Net Earnings
 Direct Material Commitment Target
 Program Payment Date
 Retention Bonus Program
 Senior Executive Staff
 Eligibility
  Bonus
Targets
  1




---



##### 



Class Category
    
    Target Bonus Amount Class I
    
    $
    300,000  Class II
    
    $
    250,000 Class III
    
    $
    200,000 Class IV
    
    $
    150,000
 Bonus
Objectives
  1.
    
    Cumulative Net Earnings (Non GAAP)
 
    
    targets as established by the Compensation Committee
    
    Weighted 50%
 2.
    
    Revenue
 
    
    targets as established by the Compensation Committee
    
    Weighted 15%
 3.
    
    Cash
 
    
    targets as established by the Compensation Committee
    
    Weighted 15%
 4.
    
    Direct Material Commitments
 
    
    targets as established by the Compensation Committee
    
    Weighted 20%
  Bonus
Payments
   50%
    
    
    X
    
    
    $
    250,000
    
    
    
    =
    
    
    $
    125,000
 2




---



##### 



15%
    
    
    X
    
    
    $
    250,000
    
    
    
    =
    
    
    $
    37,500
     Program
Termination
  3
Instructions for submitting a petition for rulemaking

Any interested person may petition the Department to issue, amend, or repeal a rule.  If you are interested in submitting such a petition, please submit it as a comment to docket number ED-2023-OGC-0071 on www.regulations.gov.  Such a petition must: (1) contain the petitioner’s name and contact information, including, at a minimum, an email address or mailing address; (2) describe the nature of the request, and identify the rule at issue, including the specific text or substance of the rule; (3) explain the interest of the petitioner in the action requested, and (4) contain an adequate justification for the action sought, including relevant data or other information that makes it easier for the Department to evaluate the petition.  Once the Department decides how to respond to the petition, it will notify the petitioner of this decision and post its decision within the appropriate docket on www.regulations.gov.  If the petition is denied, the Department will provide a statement of the grounds for denial.  If you have additional questions about submitting a petition for rulemaking, please contact Levon.Schlichter@ed.gov.
**CERTIFICATION**

**Exhibit 32.1**

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted), Kambiz Hooshmand, Chief Executive Officer of Applied Micro Circuits Corporation (the “Company”) hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge: 

(1) The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2006 (the “Report”) fullycomplies 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 for the period covered by the Report. 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) or its staff upon request. 

This certification accompanies the Form10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SEC and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether madebefore or after the date of the Annual Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing. 

 

Date: January 9, 2007
#### McLendon *v.*McLendon.

March 13, 1913.

Temporary alimony. Before Judge Freeman. Carroll superior court. June 12, 1912.

*Griffith & Matthews,*for plaintiff in error.

*Newell & Fielder,*contra.

Pish, C. J.

The judge on conflicting evidence did not err in granting the temporary alimony and counsel fees.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Beck, J., absent. The other Justices concur.*
To:	 Gainful	Employment	Negotiators

From:	 Rory	O’Sullivan,	Young	Invincibles

Date:	 September	30,	2013

Re: Proposal	to	include	program-level	CDRs	in	the	gainful	employment	rule

At	the	September	negotiations,	the	Department	raised	a	question	about	including	program	level	cohort	

default	rates	(pCDRs)	in	the	assessment	of	gainful	employment	programs’ eligibility	for	federal	aid.	 I	

participated	in	the	workgroup	on	this	topic	and	wanted	to	share	my	own	proposal,	as	outlined	below.	

1. For	each	gainful	employment	program,	the	Department	should	calculate	a	pCDR.		These	pCDRs	

would	be	calculated	under	the	same	formula	as	the	institutional	CDRs	the	Department	already	

calculates,	and	the	same	appeal	and	challenge	provisions	would	apply.		

2. pCDRs	would	be	a	“standalone” metric	and	not	used	as	a	substitute	for debt-to-earnings	ratios	

or any	other	assessments.	Currently institutions	that exceed	institutional	CDR	thresholds	

(currently,	one	year	above	40	percent	or	three	years	at	or	above	30	percent)	lose	eligibility	for	

aid.	Implementing	a	similar	metric	at	the	program	level	as	an	alternative	to	debt-to-earnings	

ratios	would	render	the	draft	rule	meaningless.	The	predatory	programs	that	we	are	concerned	

with	already	meet	institutional	CRD	thresholds,	in	many	cases	by	pushing	students	into	

forbearance	to	the	benefit	of	the	institution	rather	than	the	borrower.	Except	for	a	few	outliers,	

most	programs	at	these	schools	would	survive	a	pCDR	test,	effectively	giving	them	a	pass	on	

whether	their	graduates	actually	earn	enough	to	finance	the	cost	of	the	program.	

3. To	ensure	the	integrity	of	program-level	CDRs,	the	Department	must	strengthen	regulations	to	

prevent	CDR	manipulation.		As	the	Department	has	themselves	found,	some	unscrupulous	

schools	are	pushing	students	into	forbearance	to	serve	the	schools’	needs,	not	the	students’.

The	department	should	explore	ways	to	limit	CDR	manipulation.	This	should include	identifying	

scenarios	where	significant	numbers	of	borrowers	from	a	particular	institution	choose	

forbearance	to	their	detriment	and	preventing	schools	from	engaging	in	this	kind	of	

manipulation.	The	Department	should	also	explore	avenues	for	preventing	schools	from	

encouraging	forbearance	when	choosing	Income	Based	Repayment,	Pay	as	Your	Earn,	or	Income	

Contingent	Repayment	would	be	a	better	option.	

4. Finally,	in	our	working	group	discussions	it	became	clear	that	we	need	more	information	to	

adequately evaluate	pCDR	proposals.		Answers	to the	following	questions	would	be	helpful:
a. What	is	the	relationship	between	pCDRs	and	other	program	level	metrics	such	as	debtto-earnings	rations	and	repayment	rates?

b. Can	NCES	do	a	similar	analysis	on	the	accuracy	of	pCDR	thresholds by	program	size	as	it	

did	for	debt-to-earnings	metrics?	Are	pCDRs	similarly	accurate	down	to	the	N=10	level	

or	is	there	more variability among	pCDRs?