alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 19, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19572-19573]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9647]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Conference Meeting of the National Advisory Panel on the 
Education of Handicapped Dependents

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Dependents Schools.

[[Page 19573]] ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of a forthcoming meeting of the 
National Advisory Panel on the Education of Handicapped Dependents. 
This notice describes the functions of the Panel. Notice of this 
meeting is required under the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

DATES: June 5-7, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Bavarian Arms Hotel, Nuernberg, Germany.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Rebecca Posante, Special Education Coordinator, ODE, (703) 696-
4493, extension 147.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The National Advisory Panel on the Education 
of Handicapped Dependents is established under the Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act, as amended, (20 U.S.C., 1400 et seq.); the 
Defense Dependents' Education Act of 1978, as amended (20 U.S.C. 
927(c)); and DoD Instruction 1342.12, 32 CFR Part 57. The Panel: (1) 
Reviews information regarding improvements in services provided to 
students with disabilities in DoDDS; (2) receives and considers the 
views of various parents, students, individuals with disabilities, and 
professional groups; (3) review the finding of fact and decision of 
each impartial due process hearing; (4) assists in developing and 
reporting such information and evaluations as may aid DoDDS in the 
performance of its duties; (5) makes recommendations based on program 
and operational information for changes in the budget, organization, 
and general management of the special education program, and in policy 
and procedure; (6) comments publicly on rules or standards regarding 
the education of children with disabilities; (7) submits an annual 
report of its activities and suggestions to the Director, DoDDS, by 
July 31 of each year. The Panel will review the following areas: the 
DoDDS strategic plan, the comprehensive system of personnel 
development, and the organizational structure of the special education 
program. This meeting is open to the public; however, due to space 
constraints, anyone wishing to attend should contact the ODE special 
education coordinator, Dr. Rebecca Posante, no later than May 31.

    Dated: April 14, 1995.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 95-9647 Filed 4-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
### Gurman NOV

ENTRY REGARDING MOTION

Count 1, Municipal DRB Notice of Violation OTR (66

- 6

- 18 Vtec)

Title : Motion to Vacate (Motion 2 )

Filer : Glenn Gurman

Attorney: Nathan H. Stearns

Filed Date : October 15, 2018

No response filed

The motion is GRANTED.

This matter is an appeal of a May 30, 2018 Norwich Development Review Board (DRB)

decision finding zoning violations at Glenn Gurman’s property at 186 Kendall Station Road in

Norwich, Vermont (the May 30 Decision) . Mr. Gurman asks the Court to v acate the May 30

Decision as the DRB was without jurisdiction to render the such a decision. 1 No other party has

filed a response to th e request to vacate.

24 V.S.A. §§ 4451 and 4452 empower municipalities to remedy violations of municipal

regulations. Section 4451 provides for daily fines for violations, however, a landowner is entitled

to written notice of the alleged violation and se ven days to cure the violation. In this matter, no

action can be brought because no written notice of an alleged violation was provided to Mr.

Gurman.

Section 4452 creates the right of a municipality to institute an action in this Court to

correct or pr event a violation. Section 4452 expressly states that it is the Administrative Officer

who is empowered to bring the action. Mr. Gurman offers in his motion to vacate that the

Norwich Zoning Regulations only authorize the Zoning Administrator and the Tow n Manager to

issue notices of violation. Only i f a zoning administrator , or duly authorized Administrative

Officer, issues an enforcement decision pursuant to 24 V.S.A. § 4452 do interested parties have

a right to appeal that decision to the DRB , and subse quently this Court, for review. See 24 V.S.A.

§ 4465 ; 24 V.S.A. § 4471

. In this matter, the Z oning A dministrator never issue d a notice of

violation . Thus, § 4452 did not trigger any authority of the DRB to undertake any review.

1 We consider this a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to V.R.C.P. Rule

12(b)(1). 

## S TATE OF 

## V ERMONT

SUPERIOR COURT ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION

Docket No. 66

- 6

- 18 VtecWe therefore VACATE the DRB’s May 30, 2018 D ecision and GRANT Mr. Gurman’s motion

to dismiss . Our decision does not limit the Zoning Administrator’s authority to act pursuant to

24 V.S.A. §§ 4451 and 4452. This completes this matter.

So ordered.

Electro nically signed on October 31, 2018 at 01:42 PM pursuant to V.R.E.F. 7(d).

_________________________________________ Thomas G. Walsh, Judge

Superior Court, Environmental Division

Notifications :

Nathan H. Stearns (ERN 3585), Attorney for Appellant Glenn Gurman

Interested Person Town of Norwich

For Informational Purposes Only Rod Francis

Interested Person John Eller

Interested Person Roger Blake

jteske
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

TERRY ALLEN DREIBELBIS,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 217 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 30th day of July, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09-16-00299-CV

_________________

LAYNE WALKER, Appellant

V.

STEPHEN HARTMAN, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 58th District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. A-198,246

__________________________________________________________________

ORDER

Appellee filed a motion to recuse Justice Charles Kreger on September 23, 

2016. I certify the matter to the court for decision. See Tex. R. App. P. 16.3(b).

ORDER ENTERED September 29, 2016. 

______________________________

CHARLES KREGER

 Justice
**EXHIBIT 32.01**

**Section 1350 Certification**

**In connection with this annualreport of ML Aspect FuturesAccess LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the yearended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (this “Report”), I, Benjamin C. Weston, Chief Executive Officer and President of Merrill LynchAlternative Investments LLC, the manager of the Company, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:**

1.This Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. The information containedin this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Date: May 15, 2007
| By                                    | /s/ BENJAMIN C. WESTON |   |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|--------|
| Benjamin C. Weston                    |
| Chief Executive Officer and President |
| (Principal Executive Officer)         |

 

----
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-04-489-CR

TRACY ALLEN McDOWELL	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

	------------

	FROM THE 297TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

	------------

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

	------------

	Appellant Tracy Allen McDowell pled guilty to the offense of indecency with a child by fondling.  In accordance with the parties’plea bargain, the trial court deferred adjudication and ordered Appellant to serve ten years’ deferred adjudication community supervision.  The State later moved to adjudicate guilt, and after a hearing, the trial court adjudicated Appellant’s guilt and assessed punishment on September 9, 2004, at confinement for four years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.  This appeal followed.

	In one point, Appellant contends that the trial court erred in proceeding to an adjudication of guilt based on evidence that was insufficient to support the judgment.  The State responds that we lack jurisdiction over this appeal and, alternatively, that Appellant’s complaint is meritless.

	The court of criminal appeals has held that a defendant who pled guilty, received deferred adjudication as part of a plea bargain, and is later adjudicated guilty may not challenge the conviction on appeal, but may raise issues unrelated to the conviction.  Vidaurri v. State, 49 S.W.3d 880, 883 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001).  Here, the trial court signed a certification of Appellant’s right of appeal, finding that this was not a plea bargain and that Appellant had the right to appeal.2  Appellant argues in his brief that because the certification was not limited in any respect, he has an unlimited right to appeal.  We disagree. Because a limited right to appeal exists in deferred adjudication cases, the trial judge properly certified that Appellant had the right to appeal.  However, Appellant has not raised any issues unrelated to his conviction.  Instead, he complains that the evidence was insufficient to support the revocation of community supervision and the adjudication of guilt.

	Article 42.12 of the code of criminal procedure governs the situation at issue.  Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12 (Vernon Supp. 2004-05).  It provides that no appeal may be taken from the trial court’s determination of whether the court proceeds with an adjudication of guilt on the original charge.  See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, § 5(b).  Thus, section 5(b) also prohibits appeals asserting contentions of insufficient evidence to support revocation of deferred adjudication community supervision.  Id; Connolly v. State, 983 S.W.2d 738, 741 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999) (citations omitted); Williams v. State, 592 S.W.2d 931, 932-33 (Tex. Crim. App. 1979); Cox v. State, 156 S.W.3d 599, 603 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2004, pet. ref’d); see also Johnson v. State, 147 S.W.3d 656, 656 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2004, no pet.).  	Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL F:  HOLMAN, LIVINGSTON, and DAUPHINOT, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED:  July 14, 2005
### Order issued September 19, 2012

In The 

## (fond uf Apprats J1ifttElistrirt uf Jixas at Dallas

No. 05-12-01137-CV IN RE TROY LEE PERKINS, Relator Original Proceeding from the 282nd Criminal District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. F07-71990-S



### ORDER Before Justices Bridges, Lang, and Fillmore The Court has before it relator's September 4, 2012 letter to this Court, which we construe as a motion for rehearing. This Court has no jurisdiction over habeas corpus proceedings in which the relator seeks relief from a felony judgment after final conviction. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07 (West Supp. 2011). Accordingly, we 

### DENY the motion for reln y aring.

ROBERT M. FILLMORE JUSTICE
Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-40868 Conference Calendar

__________________ NESBITT EDWIN MADISON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus LEONARD D. YOUNG, Correctional Officer, Beto I; RICHARD K. THOMPSON, III, Correctional Officer, Beto I; DAVID W. WIMBERLY, Correctional Officer, Beto I; UNKNOWN WEST, Correctional Officer, Beto I, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:95-CV-597
- - - - - - - - - - April 17, 1996 Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Nesbitt Edwin Madison appeals the district court's dismissal as frivolous of his civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. A dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Eason v. Thaler , 14 F.3d 8, 9 (5th Cir. 1994). We determine that the district court did not abuse its discretion.No. 95-40868 -2- Madison was not deprived of due process because the change in his classification resulting from the disciplinary action did not impose an atypical and significant hardship sufficient to create a liberty interest protected by the due process clause. Luken v. Scott , 71 F.3d 192, 192-93 (5th Cir. 1995). Madison's motions for discovery, temporary restraining order, disclosure of information, and to add a defendant are DENIED. This appeal is frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Madison is cautioned that any additional frivolous appeals filed by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Madison is further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous. APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING.
#### Tai-Wing WONG, Movant, v. KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION, Respondent.

No. 95-SC-532-KB.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

Aug. 24, 1995.

Henry Joseph Curtis, Louisville, for mov-ant.

Bruce K. Davis, Executive Director, Dale Wright, Deputy Bar Counsel, Kentucky Bar Ass’n, Frankfort, for respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER

On April 18, 1994, the Inquiry Tribunal charged Movant, Tai-Wing Wong, with one count of violating SCR 3.130-1.4(a) and one count of violating SCR 3.130-3.3(a)(3).

During her representation of a client in a dissolution of marriage action, movant failed to communicate sufficiently with her client to keep her reasonably informed as to the status of the action. In her capacity as a Notary Public, Movant executed a jurat on a verified pleading knowing that the date of the jurat was inaccurate. Movant then filed the pleading in the divorce proceedings and in so doing offered false evidence. After the disciplinary charge was issued, Movant realized her error and took immediate and appropriate remedial measures.

Movant has acknowledged that her conduct violated SCR 3.130-1.4(a) and SCR 3.130-3.3(a)(3). She has requested that the disciplinary proceeding now pending against her be terminated by a public reprimand for her violation of the applicable standards of professional conduct. The Kentucky Bar Association has offered no objection to the proposed sanction. Movant has tendered payment of $157.50 as full payment of the disciplinary costs in accordance with SCR 3.450(1).

Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the evidence supports the recommendation of the Kentucky Bar Association. Tai-Wing Wong is hereby publicly reprimanded for her misconduct as set forth hereinabove, and the disciplinary proceeding pending *231against Movant shall be terminated at her cost, all in accordance with SCR 3.450(1).

All concur.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5991

Peabody Energy Corporation:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7649

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

KEITH ERIC SAUNDERS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,

District Judge. (CR-95-251, CA-00-681-1)

Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 22, 2002

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith Eric Saunders, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Stanley Glaser,

Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Keith Eric Saunders seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Saunders, Nos. CR-95-251, CA-00-

681-1 (M.D.N.C. July 3, 2001). We deny the motion for appointment

of counsel. 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.

DISMISSED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5922

Tianhai Electric North America:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
EXHIBIT 31.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
           PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James J. Cerna, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the three months
ended September 30, 2007, of Lucas Energy, Inc.;

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 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.


Dated: November 9, 2007                 /s/ JAMES J. CERNA
                                        -------------------------------
                                        James J. Cerna
                                        Chief Executive Officer