alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
i i i i i i



### MEMORANDUM OPI NIO N No. 04-10-00399- CR Alex MAND UJANO , Appellant
v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee Fr om the 187th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2009-CR-5646 Honora ble Ray mond Ang elini, J udg e Presiding PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: Aug ust 4, 2010 DI SMI SSED Alex Mandujano was indicted for murder. He later pleade d g uilty to manslaug hter pursuant to a plea barg ain with the State. As part of his ple a-ba rg ain, Mandujano signe d a separ ate “Waiver of Appea l.” The trial court imposed sentenc e and signe d a cer tificate stating that this “is a pleabarg ain case , and the defe ndant has NO rig ht of appea l.” See T E X . R. A P P . P. 25.2(a) (2). Mandujano timely filed a notice of a

ppeal. The cler

k’s re cord, w hich includes the plea barg ain agr eeme nt and0 4
- 1 0
- 0 0 3 9 9
- C R

the trial court’s Rule 25.2(a) (2) cer tification, has been filed. See T E X . R. A P P . P. 25.2(d). This court must dismiss an ap p ea l “i f a cer tification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been ma de par

t of the re cord.” Id. The court g ave Mandujano notice that the appea l would be dismiss ed unless an amende d trial court cer tification showing he has the rig ht to appea l wer e made part of the appellate rec ord within thirty day s. See T E X . R. A P P . P. 25.2(d); 37.1; Daniels v. State , 110 S.W .3d 174 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 2003, order ), disp. on merits , No. 04-03-00176- CR, 2003 WL 21508347 (Jul y 2, 2003, pet. ref ’d) (not desig nated for publication). M an dujano’s appointed appellate counsel filed a written response , stating s h e h as revie wed the rec ord and can find no rig ht of appeal. After reviewing the
rec ord and counsel’s notice, we ag ree that Mandujano does not have a rig ht to appea l. See Dears v. State , 154 S.W .3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) (holding that court of appea ls should revie w cler k’s
rec ord to deter

mine whether trial court’s cer tification is acc urate ). We there fore dismiss this appea l. T E X . R. A P P . P. 25.2(d).

PER C URI AM Do not publish

- 2
-
**EXHIBIT15**

 

MWIVeterinary Supply, Inc.Meridian, Idaho

 

Wehave reviewed, in accordance with the standards of the Public CompanyAccounting Oversight Board (United States), the unaudited interim financialinformation of MWI Veterinary Supply, Inc. and subsidiaries for the three-and six-month periods ended March 31, 2010, and 2009, as indicated in ourreport dated May 6, 2010; because we did not perform an audit, weexpressed no opinion on that information.

 

We areaware that our report referred to above, which is included in your QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, isincorporated by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-127879,333-127880, and 333-149275 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-141078on Form S-3.

 

Wealso are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) underthe Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the RegistrationStatement prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared orcertified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

 

 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Boise, Idaho

May 6, 2010

 

----
§ 1724.53 Preparation of plans and specifications. The provisions of this section apply to all borrower electric system facilities regardless of the source of financing. ( a ) *General.* ( 1 ) The borrower (acting through the engineer, if applicable) shall prepare plans and specifications that adequately represent the construction to be performed.
( 2 ) Plans and specifications for distribution, transmission, or generating facilities must be based on a construction work plan (as amended, if applicable), engineering study or construction program which has been approved by RUS if financing for the facilities will at any time be requested from RUS.
( b ) *Composition of plans and specifications package.* ( 1 ) Whether built by force account or contract, each set of plans and specifications must include: ( i ) *Distribution lines.* Specifications and drawings, staking sheets, key map and appropriate detail maps;
( ii ) *Transmission lines.* Specifications and drawings, transmission line design data manual, vicinity maps of the project, a one-line diagram, and plan and profile sheets;
( iii ) *Substations.* Specifications and drawings, including a one-line diagram, plot and foundation plan, grounding plan, and plans and elevations of structure and equipment, as well as all other necessary construction drawings, in sufficient detail to show phase spacing and ground clearances of live parts;
( iv ) *Headquarters.* Specifications and drawings, including: ( A ) A plot plan showing the location of the proposed building plus paving and site development;
( B ) A one line drawing (floor plan and elevation view), to scale, of the proposed building with overall dimensions shown; and
( C ) An outline specification including materials to be used (type of frame, exterior finish, foundation, insulation, etc.); and
( v ) *Other facilities (e.g., generation and communications and control facilities).* Specifications and drawings, as necessary and in sufficient detail to accurately define the scope and quality of work required.
( 2 ) For contract work, the appropriate standard RUS construction contract form shall be used as required by part 1726 of this chapter.
#### Olive P. Clapp *v.*South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission Ernest G. Mason et al. *v.*South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission William R. Raulukaitis *v.*South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission Edward S. Gutt et al. *v.*South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission Paul N. LaFrance et al. *v.*South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission Steven Wadach et al. *v.*South Windsor Planning and Zoning Commission

House, C. J., Cotter, Thim, Shapiro and Loiselle, Js.

Argued November 4

decided November 23, 1971

*Daniel P. Cavanaugh,*for the appellant (defendant) in each case.

*Palmer S. McGee, Jr.,*with whom were *Charles N. Segal*and *Robert P. Knickerbocker, Jr.,*and, on the brief, *Lindsey Kiang,*for the appellees (plaintiffs) in each case.

Per Curiam.

In these cases, appeals from six judgments of the Court of Common Pleas have been combined in accordance with § 606 of the Practice Book.

*581On December 10, 1968, after two years of study, the South Windsor planning and zoning commission, hereinafter called the commission, adopted a plan of development for the town. On April 1, 1969, a public hearing was held for the purpose of acting on the adoption of new zoning regulations and a new zoning map. At this hearing opposition was voiced by counsel for the named plaintiffs. On April 28, 1969, the commission unanimously adopted the new regulations and map, both to become effective that day. The properties of the plaintiffs were affected by zone changes through that action. The plaintiffs, in each of these eases, appealed to the Court of Common Pleas where their appeals were sustained. From judgments rendered in all six cases against it, the commission has appealed to this court.

An examination of the record and the appendices to the briefs discloses that the rezoning of each of these properties was an integral part of the zoning plan adopted on April 28, 1969, which was in harmony and consistent with the plan of development adopted on December 10,1968.

In each of these cases, the trial court erred in substituting its judgment for that of the commission. *Kish*v. *Planning & Zoning Board,*159 Conn. 604, 605, 267 A.2d 442; *Sobol*v. *Planning & Zoning Commission,*158 Conn. 623, 262 A.2d 185; *Belknap*v. *Zoning Board of Appeals,*155 Conn. 380, 384, 232 A.2d 922, and cases cited; see *Hawkes*v. *Town Plan & Zoning Commission,*156 Conn. 207, 240 A.2d 914.

There is error, the judgment in each of the six cases is set aside and each is remanded with direction to dismiss the appeal therein.
Bryan W. Shaw, Ph.D., Chairman Buddy Garcia, CommiSsioner Carlos Rubinstein, Commissioner Mark R Vickery, P.G., Executive Director 

## RECEIVED II t1AR 29 PH I: 52 t:H£RHAL AFFAIRS OIVISIIN 

### TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL \,lUALITY Protecting Texas by Reducing andPreventing Pollution March 25, 2011 Docket No. 2009-1898-RlJL 91 7108 2133 3935 2304 81b5

Alfredo Armendariz, Ph.D. Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- Region 6 1445 Ross Avenue Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 Dear Dr. Armendariz:

### EJFtl\.~~;)....••.fllttl................. EJDFtl\.

## fi.%1 ... EJWQ. ...•...•.••..... 6MD..............6SF.......•.......... fiOEJ...·-···. ...EJRC.. ........•..•.... 6PD

# .O.r •.**~ ~;f.~** .1•••fiXA..

### f'~-;-.-:t 

## .......

On September 15, 2010, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (Commission) adopted revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) relating to the rules for the Qualified Facilities program and the definition ofBestAvailable Control Technology. The Commission adopted amendments to§§ 116.10, 116.111, 116.116, and 116.117 and a new§ 116.17 of30 TAC Chapter 116, Control ofAir Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification and corresponding revisions to the SIP. The adopted amendments address deficiencies as identified by EPA in the rules related to the qualified facility program as published in the April14, 2010 notice ofdisapproval ofthe program as a SIP amendment (75 Federal Register 19468). By letter dated October 5, 2010, the TCEQ submitted these proposed revisions to the SIP, a public hearing certification, a complete record ofthe public hearings, and the accompanying order and supplement for the SIP revision. Enclosed, on a CD, are the submittals for the rulemakings that adopted or amended rules regarding the qualified facilities program, and the definition ofbest available control technology in§ 116.10, by the Commission onthe following dates: February 14, 1996; June 18, 1998; August 9, 2ooo; and August 21, 2002. Although EPA's records contain these previous submittals, EPA has requested and the Commission is supplying, as part ofthis transmittal, these previously submitted rulemakings to ensure that EPA reviews the new submittal together with these previous submittals. I also bring to your attention that the commission repealed §116.118 in a separate rulemaking on February 23, 2011, whiclt became effective March 17, 2011. This repeal will not be submitted as

P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087 512-239-1000 Internet address: www.tceq.state.tx.usa SIP revision, as the repealed rule hadpreviously been disapproved by EPA (75 Federal Register 19468) and is therefore no longer before EPA as a revision to the SIP.

I look forward to your expeditious approval ofthese SIP revisions. Sincerely,

BWSfjbh Enclosures
§ 247.15 Notification of eligibility or ineligibility of applicant. ( a ) *What is the timeframe for notifying an applicant of eligibility or ineligibility for CSFP benefits?* Local agencies must notify applicants of their eligibility or ineligibility for CSFP benefits, or their placement on a waiting list, within 10 days from the date of application.
( b ) *What must be included in the notification of eligibility or ineligibility?* The notification of eligibility must include information on the time, location, and means of food distribution, and the length of the certification period. Notification of ineligibility must be in writing, and must include the reason the applicant is not eligible, a statement of the individual's right to a fair hearing to appeal the decision, and a statement that informs the applicant that program standards are applied without discrimination by race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability.
EXHIBIT 31.2                         CERTIFICATION

    I, Joseph M. Harary, President, Chief Operating Officer, Treasurer and
Chief Accounting Officer of Research Frontiers Incorporated ("RFI"
or the "Registrant") certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of RFI;

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 my 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 my 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 significant 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 significant role in
the registrant's  internal control over financial reporting.

Date: October 28, 2004               /s/ Joseph M. Harary
                                      Joseph M. Harary, President, Treasurer
                                      and Chief Accounting Officer
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -  Announcements 
            -           Resource: Educational Attainment of Black and Total Populations by Age      

# Resource: Educational Attainment of Black and Total Populations by Age

This 5-Minute Challenge activity (PDF, 1 page) highlights the educational attainment of the Black population. Students can analyze data to discover trends in the educational attainment of the U.S. Black and the total populations by age.**Learn more.**
-80 -79 -78 -77 -76 -75

 38

 39

 40

★

▲

▲

▲

▲

★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲

 500

 1000

 1500

 100

18 12 06 00

07/17

NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL

 Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 17 Jul 07

 EDAS Meteorological Data

Source

★ at 38.48 N 77.37 W Meters AGL
Exhibit 99.1

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

In connection with the Annual Report of The Navigators Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending
December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Stanley A. Galanski, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



/s/
Stanley A. Galanski

Stanley
A. Galanski
Chief Executive Officer
March 28, 2003



---



QuickLinks
#### In the Matter of George A. P. Dunleavy, Appellant, v. Henry J. Noble, as Warden of Queens County House of Detention for Men, Respondent.

— Appeal by petitioner in a proceeding under CPLR article 78 from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated November 17, 1966, denying the petition for an order directing respondent to credit petitioner with additional jail time of 7 months and 25 days under a sentence previously imposed by said court. Judgment affirmed, without Costs. In our opinion, petitioner was properly credited with all jail time to which he was entitled on the State prison sentence. Christ, Acting P. J., Brennan, Hopkins, Benjamin and Munder, JJ., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 1980

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1980 appear at 80 FR 9905, Feb. 24, 2015.

#### §§ 1980.1011-1980.1014 [Reserved]
#### § 1822.273 Actions subsequent to loan approval.

After the loan is approved, actions to be taken will be in accordance with 7 CFR part 3560, subpart B.

[69 FR 69103, Nov. 26, 2004]
#### § 23.5 Availability of funds.

Funds available under title V for extension and research programs shall be allocated to, and following approval of a State Annual Plan of Work, paid to the official of the State Land Grant University designated to receive funds under the Smith-Lever and Hatch Acts respectively. Funds will be available for State programs for expenditures authorized by section 503(c) of title V, in the fiscal year for which the funds were appropriated and the next fiscal year.
#### Gertrude Golin, Appellant, v. Scophyl Realty Corp. et al., Respondents.

Order entered June 21, 1966, denying appellant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law and summary judgment granted to appellant, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellant. The defenses raised by respondents are spurious. The steps pursued by appellant herein were all within the scope of the loan agreement. No legitimate challenge is raised either with respect to liability on the note or to computation of the balance due, which is readily ascertainable; thus, there is eliminated any need of an assessment. There being no factual issues, appellant is clearly entitled to the relief requested. Concur—Steuer, J. P., Capozzoli, Tilzer, McNally and McGivem, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Lu Verne F. Haley, Appellant.

Judgment insofar as it sentences defendant unanimously reversed, sentence vacated, and matter remitted to Chautauqua County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the Memorandum. Memorandum: Defendant, in this appeal from a judgment of conviction rendered upon a plea of guilty, contends, among other claims that he was not advised of his rights to question the constitutionality of his prior conviction. The record confirms this fact. The District Attorney upon argument conceded that under the law as it existed at time of sentencing defendant should have been advised of his constitutional rights and that the failure to do so requires that the sentence *985be vacated and the matter remitted for resentencing in accordance with the provisions of section 1943 of the Penal Law. Justice requires, and the District Attorney so conceded, that defendant should be permitted to withdraw his plea at the resentencing proceedings, if so advised *(People*v. *Green,*25 A D 2d 507). (Appeal from judgment of Chautauqua County Court convicting defendant of forgery, second degree.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Marsh, JJ.
§ 1970.12 Limitations on actions during the NEPA process. ( a ) *Limitations on actions.* Applicants must not take actions concerning a proposal that may potentially have an environmental impact or would otherwise limit or affect the Agency's decision until the Agency's environmental review process is concluded. If such actions are taken prior to the conclusion of the environmental review process, the Agency may deny the request for financial assistance.
( b ) *Anticipatory demolition.* If the Agency determines that an applicant has intentionally significantly adversely affected a historic property with the intent to avoid the requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA (such as demolition or removal of all or part of the property) the Agency may deny the request for financial assistance in accordance with section 110(k) of the NHPA.
( c ) *Recent construction.* When construction is in progress or has recently been completed by applicants who can demonstrate no prior intent to seek Agency assistance at the time of application submittal to the Agency, the following requirements apply: ( 1 ) In cases where construction commenced within 6 months prior to the date of application, the Agency will determine and document whether the applicant initiated construction to avoid environmental compliance requirements. If any evidence to that effect exists, the Agency may deny the request for financial assistance.
( 2 ) If there is no evidence that an applicant is attempting to avoid environmental compliance requirements, the application is subject to the following additional requirements: ( i ) The Agency will promptly provide written notice to the applicant that the applicant must halt construction if it is ongoing and fulfill all environmental compliance responsibilities before the requested financing will be provided;
( ii ) The applicant must take immediate steps to identify any environmental resources affected by the construction and protect the affected resources; and
( iii ) With assistance from the applicant and to the extent practicable, the Agency will determine whether environmental resources have been adversely affected by any construction and this information will be included in the environmental document.
( d ) *Minimal expenditures.* In accordance with 40 CFR 1506.1(d), the Agency will not be precluded from approving minimal expenditures by the applicant not affecting the environment (*e.g.,* long lead-time equipment, purchase options, or environmental or technical documentation needed for Agency environmental review). To be minimal, the expenditure must not exceed the amount of loss which the applicant could absorb without jeopardizing the Government's security interest in the event the proposed action is not approved by the Agency, and must not compromise the objectivity of the Agency's environmental review process.