alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NUMBER 13-08-379-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

 

IN THE MATTER OF J.C.L., A JUVENILE

 

On appeal from the County Court at Law 

of Aransas County, Texas, Sitting as a Juvenile Court.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Yañez, Garza, and Vela

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Vela

Appellant, J.C.L., a juvenile, appeals from the trial court’s order terminating her

probation and sentencing her to an indeterminate term in the Texas Youth Commission

until discharge, which shall occur no later than her nineteenth birthday. By a single issue,

J.C.L. complains that the termination of her probation and sentence to TYC was

“unjustified, unreasonable, inappropriate and disproportionate to the seriousness of the

alleged violation of a term and condition of her juvenile probation,” all in violation of the

Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. See U.S. CONST.
2

amends. VIII and XIV. We affirm.

I. Procedural Background

J.C.L. was placed on juvenile probation on June 6, 2007 for delivery or offer of

delivery of a dangerous drug, a state jail felony. See TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. §

483.042(a), (d) (Vernon 2003). On three subsequent occasions, the court found that J.C.L.

had violated her probation. Each time, the court modified her probationary terms and

increased the sanction level. On April 24, 2008, J.C.L. was unsuccessfully discharged

from the Taylor County Post Adjudication Facility—a violation of her probation. Thereafter,

the State filed a motion to modify J.C.L.’s probation. At the hearing on the motion to

modify, J.C.L. entered a plea of “true” to the allegations that she violated her conditions of

probation. The trial court terminated her probation and sentenced her to an indefinite term

in TYC until discharge or no later than her nineteenth birthday.

II. Analysis

By her sole issue, J.C.L. complains the trial court’s order of termination and

sentence to TYC is unjustified, unreasonable, inappropriate and disproportionate to the

seriousness of the alleged violation of a term and condition of her juvenile probation, in

violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. See

U.S. CONST. amends. VIII and XIV. The record, however, reflects that no objection was

made to the sentence either at the time of the hearing or by any post-trial motion. By

failing to object, J.C.L. has waived any complaint on appeal. Trevino v. State, 174 S.W.3d

925, 927-29 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2005, pet. ref’d).

Even if the issue had been preserved, however, the punishment assessed was

within the limits prescribed by statute. See TEX.FAM.CODE.ANN. § 54.05(f) (Vernon 2007).
3

Generally, punishment that falls within the limits prescribed by statute is not excessive,

cruel, or unusual. See Samuel v. State, 477 S.W.2d 611, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972);

Trevino, 174 S.W.3d at 928. 

III. Conclusion

Having found that no error has been presented for review, we affirm the trial court’s

judgment.

ROSE VELA

Justice

Memorandum Opinion delivered and 

filed this 30th day of October, 2008.
March 19, 1965

A.R.D. 184.

#### The A. W. Fenton Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Reappraisements dismissed February 18, 1963.

Plaintiff’s motion for rehearing denied (Reap. Dec. 10871). Government’s motion to dismiss application for review granted.
(Reap. Dec. 8698)

Entry No. 639, etc.

#### U. S. Atomic Energy Commission *v.*United States

(Decided October 31, 1956)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Donlon, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement, listed in schedule “A,” attached hereto and made a part hereof, involve importations *562of fused calcined dolomite in drums, from Canada, by the United States Atomic Energy Commission. The dolomite, and the drums in which it was imported, are classified separately under the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and were separately appraised. The appraised value of the dolomite exceeded the entered value.

The parties have submitted the several reappraisement appeals, listed in schedule “A,” on the following stipulation:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the undersigned, subject to the approval of the Court, that at the time of exportation of the Dolomite (Quicklime), exported in steel drums, involved in all of the appeals listed in Schedule “A” hereto attached and made a part of this stipulation, no foreign value, export value, or U. S. value, as defined in Section 402 (c), (d), and (e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, existed for such or similar Dolomite (Quicklime).

> That at the time of exportation of the Dolomite (Quicklime) involved in all of the appeals listed in said Schedule “A”, the cost of production thereof, as defined in Section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 is the value set forth opposite each appeal listed in said Schedule “A”.

> That at the time of exportation of the Dolomite (Quicklime), exported in steel drums, involved in all of the appeals listed in said Schedule “A”, the foreign value of each of said steel drums in each of the appeals listed in said Schedule “A” was U. S. $5.00 each, net, and that there was no higher export value.

> That the appeals listed in said Schedule “A” are hereby submitted for decision on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find that the cost of production, as defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, is the proper basis for determination of value of the merchandise known as dolomite, and that for the respective entries of such merchandise such value is as listed in said schedule “A.”

I further find that foreign value, as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, is the proper basis for determination of value of the drums in which the dolomite was imported, and that such value is five dollars ($5) each, net.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.

Schedule “A”



*563

*564

*565
EXHIBIT 32.1


                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 Quarterly Report of m-Wise, Inc. ("the Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Shay Ben-Asulin,
Chairman of the Board and Secretary, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to my knowledge:

      (1) the Report fully comply 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 result of operations of the
Company.

By: /s/Shay Ben-Asulin
----------------------
Shay Ben-Asulin, Chairman

Dated: May 15, 2006





                                       12
No. 64177.

protests 59/2410 and 59/2412 (New York).

#### M. Pressner & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of glass ornamental novelties similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 62984, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EXHIBIT  32

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

	The undersigned, William K. Mackey, Interim Chief Executive Officer, and
Chief Financial Officer of American Development & Investment Fund, Inc. (the
Company), DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that:

1.	The Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the
Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.

	IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has executed this statement
this 14th of April, 2008.

							   /s/ Robert Hipple
							By .........................
							  Robert Hipple,
                                            Interim Chief Executive Officer
                                            and Chief Financial Officer

     A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to American Development & Investment Fund, Inc. and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - [Docket No. 2004N-0257]

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a collection of information entitled “Recordkeeping Requirements for Human Food and Cosmetics Manufactured From, Processed With, or Otherwise Containing, Material from Cattle” has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jonna Capezzuto, Office of the Chief Information Officer (HFA-250), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857,301-827-4659.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     of October 11, 2006 (71 FR 59653), the agency announced that the proposed information collection had been submitted to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0597. The approval expires on January 31, 2010. A copy of the supporting statement for this information collection is available on the Internet at                     *http://www.fda.gov/​ohrms/​dockets*.                

Dated: March 6, 2007.

Jeffrey Shuren,

Assistant Commissioner for Policy.

[FR Doc. E7-4455 Filed 3-12-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
AFS-13-372-E

August 19, 2013

 Exemption No. 10852

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2013-0436

Mr. Brian Hahn

Assistant Director, Aerospace Division

Texas State Technical College

650 East Highway 80

Abilene, TX 79601

Dear Mr. Hahn:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated April 29, 2013, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Texas State Technical College (TSTC), for an exemption from § 65.75(a) of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). This exemption, if granted, would allow Texas 

State Technical College to administer the aviation mechanic general (AMG) written test to 

students immediately following their successful completion of the general curriculum but before 

they meet the experience requirements of § 65.77.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition in 

the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay 

in acting on this petition would be detrimental to TSTC, and would not serve in the public’s 

interest.

The FAA has issued grants of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption Nos. 6569 and 8629 (copies enclosed), 

the FAA found that testing immediately after learning was a universally accepted instructional 

principle that reinforces learning. Therefore, we allow the petitioner to test students immediately 

after successfully completing the general curriculum but before meeting the requirements 

of § 65.77.
2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

• they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed 

Grant of Exemption Nos. 6569 and 8629;

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption Nos. 6569 

and 8629 also apply to the situation you present; and 

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has 

delegated to me, I hereby grant Texas State Technical College an exemption from 

14 CFR § 65.75(a) to administer the aviation mechanic general written test to students 

immediately following successful completion of the general curriculum but before meeting the 

experience requirements of § 65.77, subject to the condition and limitation described below.

Condition and Limitation

Before exercising the privileges of this exemption, TSTC must provide its operation 

handbook to its Certificate Holding District Office (CHDO) and receive approval of the 

operations handbook from the CHDO.

This exemption terminates on June 30, 2015, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John M. Allen

Director, Flight Standards Service

Enclosures
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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TROY MAGARRELL,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2634 LKK DAD P

vs.

P. MANGIS, M.D., et al.,

Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

By order filed November 21, 2005, plaintiff’s newly substituted counsel was

directed to file a notice concerning his intention to proceed on the pro se complaint filed

December 13, 2004, or to amend. Plaintiff was granted fifteen days for this purpose. No notice

or other response was filed. Defendant Roche has now filed an answer to the pro se complaint. 

Plaintiff may amend only by filing a motion for leave to amend, accompanied by a proposed

amended complaint. On the basis of plaintiff’s failure to respond to the November 21, 2005

order, the court will recommend that the two unserved defendants be dismissed pursuant to Rule

4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff’s claims against

defendants P. Mangis, M.D., and Richard Sandham, M.D., be dismissed from this action without

prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Case 2:04-cv-02634-LKK-DAD Document 25 Filed 12/13/05 Page 1 of 2
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

2

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

ten days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file and serve

written objections with the court. Failure to file objections within the specified time may, under

certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst,

951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: December 12, 2005.

DAD:13

maga2634.ftr

Case 2:04-cv-02634-LKK-DAD Document 25 Filed 12/13/05 Page 2 of 2
NAICS NAICS_TITLE OCC_CODE

31-33 Manufacturing 11-9041

31-33 Manufacturing 17-2081

31-33 Manufacturing 43-0000

31-33 Manufacturing 49-0000

31-33 Manufacturing 51-8099
OCC_TITLE GROUP TOT_EMP EMP_PRSE

Engineering managers 71790 2.1

Environmental engineers 2790 3.4

Office and administrative support occupations major 1208460 0.4

Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations major 618890 0.8

Plant and system operators, all other 3570 9.9
PCT_TOTAL PCT_RPT H_MEAN A_MEAN MEAN_PRSE H_PCT10 H_PCT25

0.58 6 57.80 120220 0.8 35.54 44.06

0.02 ~ 39.53 82220 0.8 25.95 31.74

9.71 63 17.31 36010 0.2 10.14 12.70

4.97 22 22.08 45930 0.3 13.30 16.74

0.03 ~ 22.72 47250 1.7 13.34 17.77
H_MEDIAN H_PCT75 H_PCT90 A_PCT10 A_PCT25 A_MEDIAN A_PCT75

55.34 68.46 # 73910 91650 115120 142400

39.19 47.23 53.91 53970 66020 81510 98240

16.06 20.60 26.31 21100 26420 33410 42850

21.13 26.54 32.60 27670 34820 43940 55190

22.36 27.45 31.79 27750 36960 46510 57100
A_PCT90 ANNUAL HOURLY

#

112140

54730

67810

66130
<PAGE>
 
                                   EXHIBIT 21
                                        
                                  SUBSIDIARIES
                                        

THE FOLLOWING IS A LIST OF THE COMPANY'S SUBSIDIARIES:

<TABLE>                                                           
<CAPTION>

                                                          Percentage of Voting      
                                       Organized          Securities Owned By 
Name                                 Under Laws of        Keane, Inc.   
----                                 -------------        ------------------- 
<S>                                 <C>                  <C>
Dataskills, Inc.                      Massachusetts             100%
Keane Federal Systems, Inc.             Delaware                100%
Keane Canada, Inc.                       Canada                 100%
169963 Canada, Inc.                      Canada                 100%
Keane Securities Corporation          Massachusetts             100%
Keane Technology Company                California              100%
Keane Technology Services Company       California              100%
Keane Pittsburg, Inc.                  Pennsylvania             100%
Bricker & Associates, Inc.               Illinois               100%
Keane Limited, Inc.                   United Kingdom            100%
Fourth Tier, Inc.                       California              100%

</TABLE>
POTW removal (%) = 0-90 via sorption Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = wk-mo Sorption to soils/sediments = moderate - strong PBT Potential: P2B1 *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = slow - moderate

Health : Health Summary: Absorption is moderate through the skin and GI tract and good through the lungs ( p che m ). Expect hydrolysis to release There is concern for oncogenicity and dermal and respiratory sensitization based on release of Low moderate concern.

Ecotox :

Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 0.048-13.2 daphnid 48-h LC50 0.094-5.1 green algal 96-h EC50 0.287-22.1 fish

_ chronic value 0.009-1.4
daphnid

_ chronic value 0.018-0.965

algal

_ chronic value 0.128-10.3
Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge _ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for SAR chemical class = MW liquid with unknown mp (P); log Kow = 2.6-6.2 (P); S < 7570 mg/L at 20 C (M); p H7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and mean measured concentrations; hardness <150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) Acute Concentration of Concern ( p pb) Chronic 1

SARs SAR ClassTSCA New Chemcial Category

Ecotox Factors Comments:

SAT Chair: Fate assessor: Ecotox assessor: Health assessor:
Delaware’s 1997 PM2.5 Attainment Demonstration Plan - MOVES Input and Output Files

The file size of this document is greater than 50MB. Because of its unusually large size, this 

document is not available for download from www.regulations.gov. Copies of this document are 

available for public inspection at the EPA Region III address listed in the Federal Register Proposed 

Rules document. For further information, EPA Region III’s point of contact (POC) is listed in this 

docket. 

Appendix A. 2012 MOVES Output and Input Files

Fuel Formation, pages 1-242

Fuel Supply, page 1

Road Type Distribution, pages 1-2

Vehicle Type VMT Year 2012, page 1

Vehicle Type VMT Monthly Fraction, pages 1-7

Vehicle Type VMT Day Fraction, pages 1-34

Vehicle Type VMT Hourly Fraction, pages 1-68

Meteorology Data, pages 1-6

Age Distribution, pages 1-9

Source Type Population, page 1

NCC IM to be used, pages 1-3

Run Specs, pages 1-63

New Castle County 2012 MOVES Output, page 1

Speed Distribution Spring 2012, pages 1-908

Speed Distribution Fall 2012, pages 1-869

Speed Distribution Summer 2012, pages 1-869

Speed Distribution Winter 2012, pages 1-869
2

Appendix B. 2009 MOVES and 2009 MOBILE6 Input and Output Files

Fuel Formation, pages 1-203

Fuel Supply, page 1

Road Type Distribution, pages 1-2

Vehicle Type VMT Year 2009, page 1

Vehicle Type VMT Monthly Fraction, pages 1-7

Vehicle Type VMT Day Fraction, pages 1-34

Vehicle Type VMT Hourly Fraction, pages 1-68

Meteorology Data, pages 1-6

Age Distribution, pages 1-9

Source Type Population, page 1

IM Program, pages 1-3

NCC IM to be used, pages 1-3

Run Specs, pages 1-24

New Castle County 2009 MOVES Output, page 1

Speed Distribution Spring 2009, pages 1-1289

Speed Distribution Fall 2012, pages 1-888

Speed Distribution Summer 2012, pages 1-1289

Speed Distribution Winter 2012, pages 1-888
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v GILBERT J. BARRETT, Captain, U. S. Army, Appellant

17 USCMA 50, 37 CMR 314

No. 19,939

May 19, 1967

*Colonel Daniel T. Ghent, Lieutenant Colonel Martin S. Drucker,*and *Major David J. Passamaneck*were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel Peter S. Wondolowski, Major John F. Webb, Jr.,*and *Captain L. Frank Chopin*were on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

The decision of the board of review is affirmed. United States v Simpson, 17 USCMA 44, 37 CMR 308.
**Exhibit 23.3**

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS VALUATION EXPERTS**

March 30, 2007

WitnessSystems, Inc.300 Colonial Center ParkwayRoswell, Georgia 30076

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We hereby consentto the use of the name Taylor Consulting Group, Inc. and of references toTaylor Consulting Group, Inc. and to the inclusion of and references toour reports, or information contained therein, dated  January 24, 2005 prepared for WitnessSystems, Inc. in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2006.
| Sincerely,                         |   |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Taylor Consulting Group, Inc. |   |   |
|                               |   |   |
| /s/ MICHAEL HALLIWELL              |   |   |
|                               |   |   |
| Michael Halliwell                  |   |   |
| Managing Director                  |   |   |

 

----