alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 163 (Thursday, August 24, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 40175]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17881]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and First-Class Package Service 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of notice required under 39 U.S.C. 3642(d)(1): August 24, 
2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth A. Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
August 17, 2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
Request of the United States Postal Service to Add Priority Mail & 
First-Class Package Service Contract 51 to Competitive Product List. 
Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2017-173, CP2017-
274.

Stanley F. Mires,
Attorney, Federal Compliance.
[FR Doc. 2017-17881 Filed 8-23-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 21

                        NATIONAL TECHNICAL SYSTEMS, INC.

                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



                   NTS, TECHNICAL SYSTEMS, A CALIFORNIA CORP.
            (FORMERLY NATIONAL TECHNICAL SYSTEMS, A CALIFORNIA CORP.)

         ACTON ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING CORPORATION, A MASSACHUSETTS CORP.

        APPROVED ENGINEERING TEST LABORATORIES, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORP.

                          ETCR INC., A CALIFORNIA CORP.

                  NTS TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., A FLORIDA CORP.
            (FORMERLY S&W TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC., A FLORIDA CORP.)

                    WISE AND ASSOCIATES, INC., A TEXAS CORP.

       NATIONAL TECHNICAL SYSTEMS-CERTIFICATION SERVICES, A DELAWARE CORP.

                         XXCAL, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORP.

                            XXCAL LIMITED, A UK CORP.

          NATIONAL QUALITY ASSURANCE - USA, INC., A MASSACHUSETTS CORP.
                                   (50% OWNED)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND BALANCE SHEET OF PRECISION SYSTEMS, INC. FOR THE
NINE MONTHS ENDED MAY 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FORM 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                      20,501,454
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               15,073,796
<ALLOWANCES>                                   647,411
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            36,250,142
<PP&E>                                      26,228,230
<DEPRECIATION>                              17,883,564
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              84,725,433
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       26,777,642
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        100
<COMMON>                                       147,083
<OTHER-SE>                                  57,308,608
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                84,725,433
<SALES>                                     15,283,553
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            21,083,399
<CGS>                                        7,218,361
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,218,361
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            20,059,777
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (264,052)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (4,668,273)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   210,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (4,878,273)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (4,878,273)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.35)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.35)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-11553

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

GASPAR SANTANA-GUZMAN,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:16-CR-122-10

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gaspar Santana-Guzman appeals his 120-month prison sentence for 

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, in violation 

of 21 U.S.C. § 846. He correctly acknowledges that his as-applied Sixth 

Amendment sentencing challenge is foreclosed by circuit precedent. See

United States v. Hernandez, 633 F.3d 370, 374 (5th Cir. 2011). Accordingly, 

we GRANT his motion for summary disposition and AFFIRM the judgment of 

the district court.

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 26, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-11553 Document: 00513968502 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/26/2017
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: C.B. v. Department of Family and Protective Services

Appellate case number: 01-16-00989-CV

Trial court case number: 2015-26726

Trial court: 309th District Court of Harris County

This is an accelerated appeal from an order terminating appellant’s parental rights. On 

January 18, 2017, court reporter Walter Johnson filed a notice that he was unable to produce a 

record for August 16, 2017 because he found nothing on disk or paper for that day. Johnson has 

informed our court clerk that he believes, after reviewing the docket sheet and talking to Assistant 

County Attorney Francie Aguirre, that no testimony was taken that day and the only proceeding 

was to declare the father indigent. 

Appellant’s appointed counsel states that the missing record raises no arguable issue 

because the existing record supports the trial court’s judgment.

Under Rule 34.6(f), an appellant is entitled to a new trial if the reporter’s record was timely 

requested, a significant portion of the court reporter’s notes or records have been lost or destroyed, 

the lost or destroyed portion is necessary to resolution of the appeal, and the missing portion cannot 

be replaced either by agreement or with a copy the trial court determines is an accurate duplicate 

of any original exhibit. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(f). 

Accordingly, we abate the appeal and remand the case to the trial court for an evidentiary 

hearing to determine, after hearing testimony from Walter Johnson and Francie Aguirre, the 

following: (1) whether a significant portion of the court reporter’s notes and record were lost or 

destroyed; (2) whether the lost or destroyed portion of the reporter’s record is necessary to the 

resolution of the appeal; and (3) if the lost portion of the reporter’s record can be replaced by 

agreement or by the trial court. We order the court to prepare a record, in the form of a reporter’s 

record, of the hearing. The judge shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law, and shall 

order the trial clerk to forward to this court a supplemental clerk’s record containing the findings 

and conclusions. The hearing record and supplemental clerk’s record shall be filed with the clerk 

of this court within 15 days of the date of this order.

The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court’s active docket.

The appeal will be reinstated on this court’s active docket when the trial court’s findings and 
recommendations are filed in this court. The court will also consider an appropriate motion to 

reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or the court may reinstate the appeal on its own motion.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _/s/ Harvey Brown

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: April 4, 2017
**Exhibit 24****POWER OF ATTORNEY**     The undersigned, a Director of Arbitron Inc. (the “Company”), a Delaware corporation, doeshereby make, nominate and appoint SEAN R. CREAMER and DOLORES L. CODY, and each of them, to be myattorney-in-fact for six months from the date hereof, with full power and authority to execute forand on behalf of the undersigned the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year endedDecember 31, 2005, to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; provided that such Form 10-K is first reviewed by theAudit Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company and by my attorney-in-fact, and his/hername, when thus signed, shall have the same force and effect as though I had manually signed suchForm 10-K.     I have signed this Power of Attorney as of November 15, 2005.     /s/ Alan W. Aldworth     Alan W. Aldworth     /s/ Shellye L. Archambeau     Shellye L. Archambeau     /s/ Erica Farber     Erica Farber     /s/ Philip Guarascio     Philip Guarascio     /s/ Larry E. Kittelberger     Larry E. Kittelberger     /s/ Luis G. Nogales     Luis G. Nogales     /s/ Lawrence Perlman     Lawrence Perlman     /s/ Richard A. Post     Richard A. Post
BRYAN RONK

,
Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,
Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 2982

_____________________________/

Opinion filed October 1, 2015.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Dawn Caloca

- Johnson , Judge

.
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Jennifer S. Morrissey, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Kathryn Lane, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WETHERELL

, ROWE

, and RAY

, J J

. , CONCUR.
Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 In connection with the
accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Le@P Technology, Inc. (the
Company) for the twelve month period ended December 31, 2004 (the Annual
Report), I, Timothy C. Lincoln, Acting Principal Executive Officer of the Company,
hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge and belief that the Annual Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)-14(b) or 15(d)-14(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.  Date: March 23,
      2005
    /s/
      Timothy C. Lincoln
      
      
      Timothy C. Lincoln 
      Acting Principal Executive Officer
<PAGE>

I understand that the information I am furnishing to you herein
will be used by the Company in the preparation of its 1999 Proxy
Statement or its Annual Report to the SEC on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 1998, or both.

If I am a nominee for director, I shall be deemed to have
consented, by virtue of executing this questionnaire, to being
named as such in the Proxy Statement and to serve if elected.  I
also understand that should I discontinue my principal position,
association or other identification that existed outside of the
Company at the time of my most recent election to the Board of
the Company, other than by reason of disability or retirement in
accordance with the policies relative to that position, I shall
tender my resignation as a director for consideration by the
Nominating Committee and the full Board promptly following the
date of my discontinuance of such position, association or
identification.  Further, should I consider any new or additional
association or affiliation, such as directorships or similar
positions by whatever title, with public or privately-held
commercial enterprises, or should any preexisting association or
affiliation substantially alter the nature of its activities or
purposes, I shall advise the Chairman of the Board, and if there
is no Chairman, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, so
that any potential conflict of interest or obligation, potential
embarrassment to the Company, or possible inconsistency with
Company policies, values or standards may be identified and
assessed.

In addition, by signing this Questionnaire, I hereby appoint
William M. Piet, Howard Malovany and each of them as my full and
lawful Power of Attorney to sign on my behalf, after my review,
the Annual Report on Form 10-K to be prepared and filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission for the year ended December
31, 1998.


               
Date                          Signature
#### JIFFY LUBRICATOR CO. v. ALEMITE CO. et al.

No. 2.

District Court, D. North Dakota, S. E. Division.

June 22, 1939.

Leonard L. Kalish, of Philadelphia, Pa. (Charles M. Pollock, of Fargo, N. D., of counsel), for plaintiff.

Lynn A. Williams, of Chicago, 111. (Nilles, Oehlert & Nilles, of Fargo, N. D., of counsel), for defendants.

NORDBYF, District Judge.

The only question of any moment is the authority of this Court to permit the plaintiff to take depositions limited to the question of jurisdiction under Rule 26(a) of the new Federal rules, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. Defendants allege that jurisdiction has not been obtained over them, and having filed their motion to dismiss and to quash service, it is urged that no depositions can be taken by the plaintiff to produce facts to meet the affidavits filed in support of the motion to dismiss. Defendants call attention to the language of the rule which provides that depositions may be taken by leave of court “after jurisdiction has been obtained over any defendant.” No answer has been served.

That the summons and complaint and return of service prima facie vest this Court with jurisdiction cannot be subject to much doubt. This Court has jurisdiction to determine the motion to dismiss. It may decide this motion on the complaint and affidavits submitted, or hear testimony bearing upon the question. It would seem that it is within the spirit and intent of the new rules, under these circumstances, to permit the Court to authorize the taking of depositions which are limited to the question of jurisdiction raised by defendants’ motion. Under the former practice, it was customary to order that oral testimony be taken at the hearing if the Court was of the opinion that it would be more satisfactory to decide the question of jurisdiction on oral evidence rather than on affidavits. It is fair to as* *274sume that the framers of Rule 26(a) contemplated that, in conformity with that practice, depositions may be taken under the circumstances presented herein in order to facilitate a more satisfactory showing thereby. The nature of the jurisdictional issues presented apparently requires a full and complete hearing.

The views expressed herein are supported by Moore’s Federal Practice under the New Civil Rules, which states (p. 2467): “Where the defendant serves in advance of answer a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b), such as a foreign corporation moving to dismiss on the ground of the insufficiency of service of process, it would seem that the court should ordinarily grant leave to the plaintiff to take depositions on the issues of fact, if any, raised by the motion, such as matters relating to the question whether the foreign corporation is doing business in the state, and whether the person served is an agent of the corporation who is authorized to receive service of process under Rule 4(d) (3), (7).”

It is therefore ordered that said motion be and the same hereby is in all things denied.
#### Fisher *v.*Porter.1

*(Circuit*Court, *D. Nebraska.*

February 27, 1885.)

1. Mortgage—Reformation and Foreclosure — Mistake in Description of Property.

Where the uncontradicted evidence, in a suit to reform and foreclose a mortgage, shows that there was a mistake made in describing the property intended to be covered by it, the mortgage will be reformed so as to carry out the intention of the parties.

2. Same—Usury—Agent Retaining Commission.

When an agent who negotiates a loan, secured by mortgage, bearing 10 per cent, interest, which is legal at the time, retains as a commission 10 per cent, of the amount of the loan, the transaction will not be held usurious when it appears that the mortgagee did not share in the commission retained, or agree to do so, and that the agent was acting solely as agent of the mortgagor.

Suit to Reform and Foreclose Mortgage.

*Mayne &*Hunter, for complainant.

*Geo. S. Smith*and *Geo. W. Doane,*for respondent.

1

 Reported by Robertson Howard, Esq., of tbe St. Paul bar.

Dundy, J.

There was a mistake made in the mortgage, in properly describing the land intended to be covered by it. This is uncontradicted. The mortgage must, therefore, be reformed so as to carry out the intention of the parties.

The defense of usury relied on is not sustained by the proof, especially if the later decisions in this court are to be followed in determining that question. The Porters applied to Tullys, of Council Bluffs, to borrow $1,900. Tullys was a loan broker, whose business it was to procure loanfe for others, he charging a large commission therefor. The Porters specially employed him to negotiate a loan for them, and agreed to pay him 10 per cent, commission if he procured for them the $1,900 desired. This he did. The money came into his hands, and he retained his commission according to agreement. This he had a right to do, unless he (Tullys) was the agent of Fisher, the mortgagee. Tullys went to Plattsmouth to look after the matter, prepared all the papers, did all the business for the Porters, received the money, kept his commission, and gave to the Porters the balance. There is no testimony in the record that shows that Fisher, the mortgagee, ever received, or was to receive, anything whatever from the Porters, except the principal of $1,900, and interest thereon at 10 per cent, per annum. That was lawful at the time. There is nothing that connects Fisher in any way with the commission retained by Tullys, nor is there anything that shows Fisher even knew of that part of the transaction. Tullys expressly says in his testimony that he was not agent for Fisher, and did not represent him, and that he was acting solely for the Porters. If Fisher had shared in the commission retained, or had agreed to do so, or if Tullys had in any sense been agent for Fisher, then Fisher woüld be *163hold responsible for Tullys’ acts. As it is, he was not responsible therefor.

Decree will be allowed plaintiff for amount duo on mortgage, and for taxes paid by him on the land.
EXHIBIT 31.2 CERTIFICATION OF ACTING PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
OFFICER I, Mary E.
Thomas, certify that: 1.
I have
 reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Le@P Technology, 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 small business issuer
 as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4.
The small
 business issuers other certifying officer(s) 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 small business issuer
 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer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; andc)
Disclosed in
 this report any change in the small business issuers internal control over
 financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most
 recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in
 the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably
 likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control
 over financial reporting; and5.
The small
 business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
 our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
 the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of small
 business issuer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 small business issuers ability to record, process,
 summarize and report financial information; andb)
Any fraud,
 whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have
 a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over
 financial reporting. Date: March
18, 2008 /s/ Mary E. ThomasMary E.
 Thomas 
 Acting Principal Financial Officer
Order filed May 28, 2015

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14

- 15

- 00240

- CV

___________ BRANT OILFIELD MANAG EMENT & SALES, INC. , Appellant

V.

MOUNTWEST, INC. , Appellee

On Appeal from the 127th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 321010127

O R D E R

No reporter’s record has been filed in this case. The official court reporter

for the 127th District Court informed this court that appellant had not made

arrangements for payment for the reporte r’s record. On March 24, 2015 , the clerk

of this court notified appellant that we would consider and decide those issues that

do not require a reporter = s record unless appellant, within 15 days of notice,

provided this court with proof of payment for the record. See T ex. R. App

. P.

37.3(c). Appellant has not provided this court with proof of payment for the

record

.Accordingly, we order appellant to file a brief in this appeal on or before

June 29, 2015 . If appellant fails to comply with this order, the court will dismiss
the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM