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

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8002 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8002

To amend the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 to require 
  States to consider measures that limit the amount of retail utility 
  rate increases a utility company can request to once every 365 days.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 15, 2024

   Mr. Harder of California introduced the following bill; which was 
            referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 to require 
  States to consider measures that limit the amount of retail utility 
  rate increases a utility company can request to once every 365 days.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Stop the Rate Hikes Act''.

SEC. 2. CONSIDERATION OF MEASURES TO CAP RETAIL UTILITY RATE INCREASES 
              TO ONCE A YEAR.

    Section 111(d) of the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 
1978 (16 U.S.C. 2621(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(22) Cap on retail utility rate increases to once a 
        year.--Each electric utility shall request no more than one 
        rate increase once per year.''.
                                 <all>
```
August 1, 2017

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

RON POUNDS, Appellant

NO. 14-16-00263-CV V.

LIBERTY LLOYDS OF TEXAS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, Liberty Lloyds

of Texas Insurance Company, signed February 26, 2016, was heard on the transcript 

of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We 

order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED.

We order appellant, Ron Pounds, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of catalogingand locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)

**Title:**Ahistory of Marine Attack Squadron 311
Pt.1,Pt.2 

 
SuDoc:� D 214.13:AT 8/2��������� 
�Item Number:0383-B (online)
�CGP system Number:001018296
Exhibit 10.23 to St. Jude Medical, Inc. Form 10-K for the year ended December 30, 2006






Exhibit 10.23  




Summary of Compensation for Non-employee
Directors




	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
 

	
Effective May
16, 2007, the compensation of each non-employee member of the Board of
Directors will be: 


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
1.

	
Annual
  retainer: $54,000 paid monthly (increased from $50,000)


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
2.

	
Per diem for
  each board meeting: $2,000 (excluding telephone board meetings)


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
3.

	
Annual
  non-qualified stock option grant:








	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
a.

	
Date of
  grant: Annual shareholders meeting


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
b.

	
Term: 8
  years


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
c.

	
Price: 100%
  of fair market value on date of grant


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
d.

	
Vesting: 6
  months after date of grant


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
e.

	
Amount: 7,750
  (increased from 5,600)








	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
4.

	
Physical
  exam: Reimbursement for up to $1,500 for an annual physical exam


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
5.

	
Committee
  fees:








	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
a.

	
Chairperson:








	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
i.

	
Compensation
  Committee and Governance and Nominating Committee: $9,000 per annum 


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
ii.

	
Audit Committee:
  $12,000 per annum (increased from $9,000)








	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
b.

	
Members: $4,000
  per annum


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
c.

	
Presiding
  Director: $5,000 per annum








	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
6.

	
Charitable
  contribution match: Directors are eligible for the Company’s standard program
  which matches certain charitable contributions up to a maximum of $1000 per
  year.


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
7.

	
Restricted
  stock in lieu of retainer: Each director can elect to take 100%, 50% or none
  of their retainer in the form of a restricted stock grant which is valued at
  fair market value on the date of grant, with the restriction lapsing six
  months after the date of grant.


	
 

	
 

	
 


	
 

	
8.

	
Terminated
  retirement plan: Under a retirement plan for non-employee directors that was
  terminated April 1, 1996, each non-employee director serving on the Board at
  that time who serves five years or more will receive payment of an annual
  benefit equal to the average of the annual retainers paid to the director
  during his or her service as a director, with a minimum annual benefit of
  $24,000. The retirement benefit will commence at the later of the time of
  retirement from the Board or when the director becomes 60 years old. The
  retirement benefit is payable over a number of years equal to the director’s
  years of service as a member of the Board of Directors prior to April 1,
  1996.
Exhibit 10.1 (e) vii
                               Document is copied


                                 Promissory Note
                                 ---------------


$100,000.00
-----------

For  Value  Received,  Sharp Holding Corporation (maker), promises to pay to the
order  of  Gilbert Gertner (Payee), at 1300 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 2222, Houston,
Texas  77056,  or  such other address as may be designated by the holder hereof,
the  principle  sum  of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) together with
the  interest  at  the  rate  of 10% per annum.  Payment shall be due on demand.

Whenever  used  herein, the words "maker" and "payee" shall be deemed to include
their  respective  heirs,  personal  representatives,  successors  and  assigns.

The  maker  hereof  and  all parties who at the time may be liable hereon in any
capacity,  jointly  and  severally,  waive  presentment for payment, protest and
notice  of  dishonor  of  this  note.

This  note  is  executed  and  delivered  and  payable in the State of Texas and
construed in accordance with the Laws of the State of Texas.


Sharp Holding Corporation



/s/  George T. Sharp
--------------------
George T. Sharp, President

Date:  November 5, 2002


                                       51
<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             362
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,917
<ALLOWANCES>                                       282
<INVENTORY>                                      5,822
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                14,933
<PP&E>                                           4,522
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,988
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  21,577
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,692
<BONDS>                                          1,300
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              761
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            54
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,726
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,780
<SALES>                                          7,510
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,510
<CGS>                                            4,904
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,904
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    14
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 119
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (967)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         8
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (975)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (975)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)
        

</TABLE>
#### Hutton et al *v.*Boze et al.

[No. 21,371.

Filed January 27, 1910.]

From White Circuit Court; *James P. Wason,*Judge.

Highway petition by Stephen J. Boze and others, against which James C. Hutton and another remonstrate. From a judgment for petitioners, remonstrants appeal.

*Affirmed.*

*Alfred W. Reynolds, Addison K. Sills*and *Addison K. Sills, Jr.,*for appellants.

*James T.*Gfraves, *R. J. Million*and *Thomas J. Banna,*for appellees.

Montgomery, J.

The questions presented in this case are in all respects the same as those involved in the case of *Moore*v. *Bible*(1910), *ante,*413, and upon the authority of that case and the decisions on which it rests the judgment is affirmed,
[Cite as State v. Hawkins , 104 Ohio St.3d 582 2004-Ohio-7124.]

T HE S TATE OF O HIO , A PPELLEE AND C ROSS -A PPELLANT , v . H AWKINS , A PPELLANT AND C ROSS -A PPELLEE . [Cite as State v. Hawkins , 104 Ohio St.3d 582, 2004-Ohio-7124.] Criminal law — Court of appeals’ j udgment reversed and cause remanded for application of State v. Leach. (No. 2004-1299

— Submitted December 14, 2004

— Decided December 30, 2004.)
A PPEAL and C ROSS -A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No.

82465, 2004-Ohio-855.

__________________ {¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is accepted on Proposition of Law No. II. {¶ 2} The cross-appeal is not accepted. {¶ 3} The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded for application of State v. Leach , 102 Ohio St.3d 135, 2004-Ohio-2147, 807 N.E.2d 335.
M OYER , C.J., R ESNICK , P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON and O’D ONNELL , JJ., concur.
F.E. S WEENEY and O’C ONNOR , JJ., dissent.

__________________ William D. Mason, Cuyahoga County Pr osecuting Attorney, Lisa Reitz Williamson and Brian Mooney, Assistant Pr osecuting Attorneys, for appellee and cross-appellant. Robert L. Tobik, Cuyahoga County P ublic Defender, and John T. Martin, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant and cross-appellee.

__________________
**EXHIBIT 35.1**

 

**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

**New Holland Credit Company, LLC**

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of New Holland Credit Company, LLC (“NHCC”), as Servicer pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of August 1, 2015 (as amended from time to time, the “Sale and Servicing Agreement”) by and among NHCC, CNH Capital Receivables LLC and CNH Equipment Trust 2015-C, does hereby certify that:

 

1.                                      NHCC is Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.

 

2.                                      The undersigned is duly authorized as required pursuant to the Sale and Servicing Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate to the Indenture Trustee.

 

3.                                      This Certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 4.9(a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement and Item 1123 of Regulation AB.

 

4.                                      A review of the Servicer’s activities during the period from the trust’s initial cut-off date, July 31, 2015, to and including December 31, 2015 and of its performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement has been made under my supervision.

 

5.                                      To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the period from the trust’s initial cut-off date, July 31, 2015, to and including December 31, 2015.

 

6.                                      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 29th day of March, 2016.

 

March 29, 2016

 

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Brett D. Davis |
|--------|--------|--------------------|
|   | Name:  | Brett D. Davis     |
|   | Title: | President          |

 

----
#### Sigler v. The Kingston National Bank

Before Valentine, P. J., Aponick and Flannery, JJ.

*Mose H. Salsburg*and *Henry Thalenfeld,*for plaintiff.

*Bedford, Waller, Jones & Darling,*for defendant.

January 18, 1952.

Flannery, J.,

Defendant filed preliminary objections to plaintiff’s complaint. They are: (a) A demurrer, and (b) a motion to strike off.

Thomas Sigler sued the bank to recover the amount of the forged checks which it paid out on an account opened in the name of Cable Vision Co. The account was opened by plaintiff and one Leo E. Gaj, with $6,-000 deposited by plaintiff, withdrawals to be on checks signed by both. On the same day two checks were drawn in the amount of $2,000 and $1,800, respectively, which Leo E. Gaj was to transmit and deliver to *366the payee, R. G. Genzlinger, Inc. That was not done. Endorsements were forged by Leo E. Gaj, who appropriated the proceeds. The bank paid from the funds deposited by plaintiff on the forged endorsements.

The demurrer is based on the proposition that Cable Vision Co. is a partnership and Thomas Sigler cannot maintain the action in his own name. But the complaint does not allege that it is a partnership and we must for the purposes of this discussion accept the averment of the complaint. Here then is an account opened by two people with funds of one of them, and under the authority of Chromey v. Miners Savings Bank of Pittston, 29 Luz. 500, that one whose money it was may maintain the action. To the same effect see Gish Banking Company v. Leachman’s, admr., et al., 163 Ky. 720, 174 S. W. 492, and Neiman v. Beacon Trust Company, 170 Mass. 452, 49 N. E. 748, and see also Hubiayak v. Harr, etc., 30 Luz. 471.

The motion to strike off assumes the existence of a partnership and complains that a copy of the partnership agreement is not attached. This second reason must fail for the same defect as disqualified the first. No partnership is alleged in the complaint.

The plan or plot of Gaj, who has already been convicted of forgery and fraudulent conversion in this court, was disclosed at argument. He promised to form a partnership prospectively which promise was a fraudulent device to obtain control of plaintiff’s money. Under such circumstances, plaintiff would be in error to affirm a partnership and we would be unwarranted in torturing the phraseology of the complaint to conclude one.

Now, January 18, 1952, at 2 p.m., preliminary objections dismissed and defendant is directed to file its answer on the merits within 26 days from the date hereof.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-11217

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Raunel Garcia-Suarez, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:22-CR-476-1

______________________________

Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Raunel Garcia-Suarez challenges on two bases his guilty-plea 

conviction and within-Guidelines 70-months’ sentence for illegal reentry 

after removal from the United States, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)

(prohibiting reentry of removed aliens), (b)(1) (setting applicable maximum

penalty). 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 2, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-11217 Document: 58-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/02/2024
No. 23-11217

2

Garcia correctly concedes his contention that § 1326(b) violates due 

process is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 

(1998), but raises the issue to preserve it for possible further review. See 

United States v. Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553–54 (5th Cir. 2019) (discussing 

Almendarez-Torres). 

He has abandoned, by failing to adequately brief, his challenge to the 

substantive reasonableness of his sentence. See, e.g., United States v. 

Stalnaker, 571 F.3d 428, 439–40 (5th Cir. 2009) (explaining challenges were 

waived when appellant did “not cite the record or relevant law”); Fed. R. 

App. P. 28(a)(8) (outlining requirements for appellant’s brief). 

AFFIRMED.

Case: 23-11217 Document: 58-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/02/2024
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed July 14, 2014. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 13

- 01579

- CV
MISHA BENNETT

- HICKMAN , Appellant V. JON FOLEY AND OLIN C LEMONS , Appellees
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 13

- 06006

- B



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Fillmore, Evans, and Lewis Opinion by Justice Fillmore Misha Bennett

- Hickman’s brief in this case is overdue . By postcard dated May 16, 2014, we informed Bennett

- Hickman that the time for filing her brief had expired. We directed her to file both her brief as well as a motion to extend time to file the brief within ten days of the date of the postcard. We cau tioned her that the failure to file her brief and extension motion within the time stated would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. To date, Bennett

- Hickman has not filed her brief or an extension motion, nor has she otherwise

c orresponded with the Court regarding the status of her appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), (c).

131579F.P05 /Robert M. Fillmore/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE JUSTICE– 2

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

MISHA BENNETT

- HICKMAN, Appellant

No. 05

- 13

- 01579

- CV V.

JON FOLEY AND OLIN CLEMONS, Appellees On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 13

- 06006

- B. Opinion delivered b y Justice Fillmore, Justices Evans and Lewis participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellees JON FOLEY AND OLIN CLEMONS recover their costs of this appeal, if any, from appel lant MISHA BENNETT

- HICKMAN.

Judgment entered this 14th day of July, 2014.
§ 1.167(h)-1 Life tenants and beneficiaries of trusts and estates. ( a ) *Life tenants.* In the case of property held by one person for life with remainder to another person, the deduction for depreciation shall be computed as if the life tenant were the absolute owner of the property so that he will be entitled to the deduction during his life, and thereafter the deduction, if any, shall be allowed to the remainderman.
( b ) *Trusts.* If property is held in trust, the allowable deduction is to be apportioned between the income beneficiaries and the trustee on the basis of the trust income allocable to each, unless the governing instrument (or local law) requires or permits the trustee to maintain a reserve for depreciation in any amount. In the latter case, the deduction is first allocated to the trustee to the extent that income is set aside for a depreciation reserve, and any part of the deduction in excess of the income set aside for the reserve shall be apportioned between the income beneficiaries and the trustee on the basis of the trust income (in excess of the income set aside for the reserve) allocable to each. For example: ( 1 ) If under the trust instrument or local law the income of a trust computed without regard to depreciation is to be distributed to a named beneficiary, the beneficiary is entitled to the deduction to the exclusion of the trustee.
( 2 ) If under the trust instrument or local law the income of a trust is to be distributed to a named beneficiary, but the trustee is directed to maintain a reserve for depreciation in any amount, the deduction is allowed to the trustee (except to the extent that income set aside for the reserve is less than the allowable deduction). The same result would follow if the trustee sets aside income for a depreciation reserve pursuant to discretionary authority to do so in the governing instrument. No effect shall be given to any allocation of the depreciation deduction which gives any beneficiary or the trustee a share of such deduction greater than his pro rata share of the trust income, irrespective of any provisions in the trust instrument except as otherwise provided in this paragraph when the trust instrument or local law requires or permits the trustee to maintain a reserve for depreciation.
( c ) *Estates.* In the case of an estate the allowable deduction shall be apportioned between the estate and the heirs legatees, and devisees on the basis of income of the estate which is allocable to each.
[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 11402, Nov. 26, 1960. Redesignated, T.D. 6712, 29 FR 3653, Mar. 24, 1964]
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 7270** 

JOHN P. ALLISON , Petitioner

– Appellant ,
v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. ( 2:15

- cv - 00144

- RBS

- LRL )

Submitted : February 16, 2017 Decided: February 21, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN , Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. John Allison, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: John P . Allison seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U .S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (A) (2012)
. A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denia l of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012)
. When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitut ional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Allison has not made the requisite showing. A ccordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately3 presented in the materials before th is court and argu ment would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED