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

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2203 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the excise tax 

on telephone and other communications services. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 30, 2009 

Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia (for himself and Mr. THOMPSON of Pennsylvania) 

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 

Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 

the excise tax on telephone and other communications 

services. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Telephone Excise Tax 

5 Repeal Act of 2009’’. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2203 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF EXCISE TAX ON TELEPHONE AND 

2 OTHER COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 33 of the Internal Rev4 enue Code of 1986 (relating to facilities and services) is 

5 amended by striking subchapter B. 

6 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

7 (1) Section 4293 of the Internal Revenue Code 

8 of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘chapter 32 (other 

9 than the taxes imposed by sections 4064 and 4121) 

10 and subchapter B of chapter 33,’’ and inserting 

11 ‘‘and chapter 32 (other than the taxes imposed by 

12 sections 4064 and 4121),’’. 

13 (2)(A) Paragraph (1) of section 6302(e) of such 

14 Code is amended by striking ‘‘section 4251 or’’. 

15 (B) Paragraph (2) of section 6302(e) of such 

16 Code is amended— 

17 (i) by striking ‘‘imposed by—’’ and all that 

18 follows through ‘‘with respect to’’ and inserting 

19 ‘‘imposed by section 4261 or 4271 with respect 

20 to’’, and 

21 (ii) by striking ‘‘bills rendered or’’. 

22 (C) The subsection heading for section 6302(e) 

23 of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘COMMUNICA24 TIONS SERVICES AND’’. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
3 

•HR 2203 IH

1 (3) Section 6415 of such Code is amended by 

2 striking ‘‘4251, 4261, or 4271’’ each place it ap3 pears and inserting ‘‘4261 or 4271’’. 

4 (4) Paragraph (2) of section 7871(a) of such 

5 Code is amended by inserting ‘‘or’’ at the end of 

6 subparagraph (B), by striking subparagraph (C), 

7 and by redesignating subparagraph (D) as subpara8 graph (C). 

9 (5) The table of subchapters for chapter 33 of 

10 such Code is amended by striking the item relating 

11 to subchapter B. 

12 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

13 this section shall apply to amounts paid pursuant to bills 

14 first rendered more than 90 days after the date of the 

15 enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09-18-00419-CV

_________________

IN RE ALEX MELVIN WADE JR.

________________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding

284th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 17-05-06174

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Proceeding pro se, Relator, Alex Melvin Wade Jr., filed a mandamus petition 

to compel the trial court to rule on his motion for appointment of counsel in a civil 

suit and to stay all proceedings pending final resolution of Wade’s motions. On 

November 14, 2018, we notified Wade that because it appears he is a vexatious 

litigant subject to prefiling orders, the mandamus proceeding would be dismissed 

unless within ten days he obtained an order from the local administrative judge 

permitting the filing of the original proceeding. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 
2

Ann. §§ 11.101–.104 (West 2017). To date, we have not received a copy of an order

signed by the local administrative judge. See id. § 11.102. Accordingly, we dismiss 

the original proceeding for a mandamus petition. See id. § 11.1035(b). 

PETITION DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on December 12, 2018

Opinion Delivered December 13, 2018

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger, and Johnson, JJ.
§ 310.6 Entrance requirements. ( a ) *Enrollment prior to April 1, 1982.* A candidate for admission to a school who wishes to be considered for Federal student subsistence payments shall: ( 1 ) Be a citizen of the United States.
( 2 ) Be obligated to ( i ) complete the Naval Science curriculum
( ii ) take all necessary and positive steps to obtain a commission as ensign in the United States Naval Reserve,
( iii ) apply before graduation for such commission, and
( iv ) accept such commission if offered. A breach of this agreement will result in termination of cadet status and of Federal student subsistence payments, and may lead to legal action for recovery of all past such payments. The requirements of this paragraph shall not apply at The Great Lakes Maritime Academy.
( 3 ) Be obligated to sit for the appropriate licensing examination of the United States Coast Guard. A breach of this agreement will result in termination of cadet status and of Federal student subsistence payments, and may lead to legal action for recovery of all past such payments.
( 4 ) Meet the physical standards specified by the United States Coast Guard for original licensing as a merchant marine officer. The written certification of the Superintendent of the school, based on a physical examination by a doctor, the results of which are on record at the school, that a candidate meets these requirements, will be acceptable to the Administration.
( 5 ) Possess a secondary school education or equivalent, satisfactory for admission as an undergraduate, to colleges or universities under control of the State in which the school is located.
( 6 ) Meet requirements established by the school in regard to such criteria as the individual's secondary school grades, rank in graduating class, aptitude, achievement, and qualities of leadership.
( b ) *Enrollment on or after April 1, 1982.* A candidate for admission to a school who wishes to be considered for the Federal student incentive payments shall: ( 1 ) Meet the requirements of paragraphs (a) (1), (4), (5), and (6) of this section.
( 2 ) Be at least seventeen (17) years of age and not have passed the twenty-fifth (25th) birthday on the day of enrollment at a School.
( 3 ) Apply for, be offered, and have accepted midshipman status in the United States Naval Reserve (including the Merchant Marine Reserve, United States Naval Reserve) and simultaneously have applied and been accepted for Enlisted Reserve status.
( 4 ) Be obligated to complete the naval science curriculum.
[46 FR 37694, July 22, 1981, as amended at 48 FR 24080, May 31, 1983]
#### § 30.10-2a Anniversary date—TB/ALL.

The term *anniversary date* means the day and the month of each year, which corresponds to the date of expiration of the Certificate of Inspection.

[USCG-1999-4976, 65 FR 6499, Feb. 9, 2000]
Submitted on record and briefs November 17, 1995,

affirmed January 3, 1996

#### Michael M. McDonnell, *Appellant, v.*State of Oregon, *Respondent.*

(93CV1074CC; CA A81777)

909 P2d 215

David W. Knofler filed the brief for appellant.

Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Armstrong, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Affirmed. *Martin v. Baldwin,*138 Or App 296, 906 P2d 868 (1995).
§ 185.524 Fire fighting drills and training. ( a ) The master shall conduct sufficient fire drills to make sure that each crew member is familiar with his or her duties in case of a fire.
( b ) Each fire drill must include: ( 1 ) Summoning passengers on a vessel on an overnight voyage to muster or embarkation stations;
( 2 ) Summoning the crew to report to assigned stations and to prepare for and demonstrate assigned duties; and
( 3 ) Instruction in the use and location of fire alarms, extinguishers, and any other fire fighting equipment on board.
( c ) Each fire drill must, as far as practicable, be conducted as if there were an actual emergency.
( d ) Fire fighting drills and training shall be logged or otherwise documented for review by the Coast Guard upon request. The drill entry shall include the following information: ( 1 ) Date of the drill and training; and
( 2 ) General description of the drill scenario and training topics.
[CGD 85-080, 61 FR 1005, Jan. 10, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 51359, Sept. 30, 1997]
#### JACK WECHSLER AND TOBIAS GOLD, PARTNERS, TRADING AS NEW YORK WINDOW SHADE COMPANY, RESPONDENTS, v. FRANK R. CLARKE, APPELLANT.

Submitted May 8, 1929

Decided July *5,*1929.

Before Justices Parker, Black and Bokuste.

*628For the appellant, *Levy, Fenster <& McQloskey.*

For the respondents, *Frank Masini.*

Per Curiam.

Judgment in this case was entered on a hook account. On August 10th, 1927, Jack Weehsler received a phone order to place window shades in an apartment house at Ellis and Springfield avenues, Irvington, New Jersey. He went to the office of Eichard H. Thiele, Esquire, an attorney-at-law, and was told by Mr. Thiele 'to take the measurements and deliver the shades to the apartment house and to charge them to the Ellis Eealty Company.

The court found that the defendant, Frank E. Clarke, was liable for the shades as Mr. Thiele had purchased them as agent for him.

The sole question in this case is whether there was competent legal proof that Eichard H. Thiele was agent for Frank E. Clarke when he ordered the shades for the apartment house, in which Clarke had an interest.

The only testimony touching the matter was the testimony of Thiele and his declarations. Agency may not be proved by declarations of the agent. Further, Thiele merely testified that he was Clarke’s attorney. An attorney-at-law has no implied authority to buy window shades.

The case must be reversed.
11-i 

CHAPTER 11. LIFE-CYCLE COST SUBGROUP ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

11.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................ 11-1

11.2 GENERAL APPROACH.................................................................................................. 11-1
11-1 

CHAPTER 11. LIFE-CYCLE COST SUBGROUP ANALYSIS

11.1 INTRODUCTION

The life-cycle cost (LCC) subgroup analysis evaluates impacts on any identifiable groups 

or customers who may be disproportionately affected by any national energy efficiency standard 

level. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) will conduct this analysis as one of the analyses for 

the notice of proposed rulemaking. DOE will accomplish this, in part, by analyzing the LCC and 

payback periods (PBPs) for those customers who fall into identifiable affected groups. DOE 

plans to evaluate variations in regional energy prices and variations in energy use that might 

affect the net present value of a standard to customer subpopulations. To the extent possible, 

DOE will obtain estimates of each input parameter’s variability and will consider this variability 

in its calculation of customer impacts. DOE plans to perform sensitivity analyses to consider 

how differences in energy use will affect subgroups of customers. 

DOE will determine the impact on customer subgroups using the LCC spreadsheet 

model, which allows for different data inputs. The standard life-cycle cost and payback period 

analysis (described in the preliminary technical support document (TSD) chapter 8) focuses on 

all business and institutional users of walk-in equipment. DOE can use the LCC spreadsheet 

model to analyze the LCC for any subgroup by sampling only that subgroup. Model inputs used 

by the Department to determine LCC and PBPs are described in detail in the life-cycle cost and 

payback period analysis (see preliminary TSD chapter 8). 

11.2 GENERAL APPROACH

DOE will use the LCC spreadsheet model to evaluate impacts on consumer subgroups, 

especially small-business customers. DOE can analyze the LCC for any subgroup by applying 

the LCC spreadsheet model to only that subgroup within individual regions. DOE is particularly 

sensitive to increases in the consumer price of the considered products, wishing to avoid a 

negative economic impact on any identified consumer subgroup with limited capacity to absorb 

price increases. The impacts on subgroups will be compared to impacts on the overall 

population. Compared to the 2009 final rule analysis, DOE will expand the scope to include 

additional subgroups such as independent restaurant owners, coffee shops and delis, and schools.
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                          ANNUAL SERVICER'S CERTIFICATE
                              BANK ONE, TEXAS, N.A.

                       BANK ONE AUTO GRANTOR TRUST 1996-A

         The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of Bank One, Texas,
N.A., as servicer (the "Servicer") under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement
dated as of March 1, 1996 (the "Agreement") between Bank One, Texas, N.A., as
Seller and Servicer, and The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A., as Trustee, does hereby
certify on behalf of the Servicer as follows:

         1. Bank One, Texas, N.A. is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under
the Agreement. Capitalized terms used in this Certificate have the meanings set
forth in the Agreement.

         2. A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period from
the Closing Date to December 31, 1996 (the "Applicable Period") and of its
performance under the Agreement has been made by me or under my supervision.

         3. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has
fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout the Applicable
Period.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed and delivered
this Certificate on behalf of the Servicer this 7th day of March, 1997.

                                            BANK ONE, TEXAS, N.A.,
                                               as Servicer

                                            By: /s/ Jeff Stewart
                                               --------------------
                                            Name:Jeff Stewart
                                                 ------------------
                                            Title:Vice President
                                                 ------------------

                                     Page 9
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2422 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

702 East University Avenue in Georgetown, Texas, as the ‘‘Kyle G. 

West Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 14, 2009 

Mr. CARTER (for himself, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. EDWARDS of 

Texas, Mr. HINOJOSA, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. 

MCCAUL, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. REYES, Mr. OLSON, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. 

SMITH of Texas, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Ms. GRANGER, and Mr. 

GOHMERT) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 702 East University Avenue in Georgetown, 

Texas, as the ‘‘Kyle G. West Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. KYLE G. WEST POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 702 East University Avenue in 

6 Georgetown, Texas, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘Kyle G. West Post Office Building’’. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2422 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Kyle G. West Post 

5 Office Building’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
§ 196.37-1 Application. ( a ) The provisions of this subpart shall apply to all vessels.
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2012-0645

Directorate Identifier: 2011NM052AD

737-53A1214, R3 --- 1/19/11

737-53A1214, R2 --- 5/24/01

737-53A1214, R1 --- 6/22/00

737-53A1214 --- 6/17/99

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. SW.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
Editorial Note on Part 2
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 2 appear by USCG-2009-0702, 74 FR 49223, Sept. 25, 2009, and USCG-2013-0671, 78 FR 60144, Sept. 30, 2013.

§ 2.45-25 Application for approval. ( a ) An application for approval must be made in writing and in the English language to Commandant (CG-ENG), Attn: Office of Design and Engineering Systems, U.S. Coast Guard Stop 7509, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20593-7509.
( b ) The application must— ( 1 ) Indicate the type of work the classification society intends to perform on vessels in the United States;
( 2 ) Include documentation demonstrating that the classification society complies with § 2.45-15;
( 3 ) Contain a list of the vessels surveyed by the classification society over the previous 3 calendar years. The list must include vessel names, flags, and IMO numbers, as well as initial vessel inspections and detentions; and
( 4 ) Provide a summary of the safety records of vessels the classification society surveys for each of the previous 3 calendar years, including initial vessel inspections and detentions for all data contained in regional port state control Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) and other port state control data sources, including the U.S. Coast Guard.
( c ) An application submitted in accordance with 46 CFR part 8, subpart B satisfies the application requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, provided the applicant: ( 1 ) Has been notified in writing by the Commandant that it met the criteria to be a recognized classification society, and its recognized status has not been revoked, under 46 CFR part 8, subpart B;
( 2 ) Submits in writing and in the English language to the address in paragraph (a) of this section a statement that the applicant is applying for approval under this subpart; and
( 3 ) Certifies in the submission under paragraph (c)(2) of this section that the information in the application submitted under 46 CFR part 8, subpart B remains valid.
#### ANNA BORETH, ADMINISTRATRIX AD PROSEQUENDUM OF HARRY O. BORETH, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF, v. CARL KISSELMAN, DEFENDANT. DANA BORETH AND OSCAR BORETH, BY THEIR MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND, ANNA BORETH, AND ANNA BORETH IN HER OWN RIGHT, PLAINTIFFS, v. CARL KISSELMAN, DEFENDANT.

Argued January term, 1929

Decided July 3, 1929.

Before Justices Trenchard, Kalisch and Lloyd.

Por the rules, *Bleakly, Stockwell ■& Burling, McCarter & English*and *Albert 8. Woodruff.*

*Contra, Walter 8. Keown.*

Per Curiam.

These are rules for new trials allowed to the defendant in the cases of Anna Boreth, administratrix of Harry 0. Boreth, and Dana Boreth, Oscar Boreth and Anna Boreth against Carl Kisselman to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in a collision between an automobile driven by Kisselman and an automobile driven by Harry 0. Boreth on the Marlton pike between Ellisburg and Marlton. There were large verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs.

*923The reason urged for new trial is that the jury’s finding on liability was against the weight of the evidence.

Our conclusion is that the verdicts are so clearly against the weight of the evidence that they must be set aside. The accident arose in this wise: The defendant’s car was pro-

ceeding from Camden out the Marlton pike at nine .p. at. daylight saving time, on June 22d, 1927. Harry Boreth was driving his car toward Camden on the same night; having with him on the back seat of the car his wife and two infant children. In the defendant’s car were 'Kisselman and three companions. In the collision that occurred Boreth was killed and Mrs. Boreth and the two children sustained severe personal injuries.

Plaintiff’s contention was that as they were proceeding in opposite directions, defendant’s car crossed the road from its own side and collided with the car in which the plaintiffs were riding.

Defendant’s proofs were to the effect that the right front wheel of plaintiff’s car came off and ran out into a field; that the axle dragged to the ground and that the car swerved to its left side, causing the right side of plaintiff’s car to collide with the left front of defendant’s car. Photographs of the cars and marks on the road where the fallen axle had dragged strongly evidenced the truth of this contention. If, as seems clear, the collision occurred between the left front wheel of the defendant’s car and the right front wheel of the plaintiff’s ear it is difficult, if not impossible to accept the plaintiff’s version of the accident, and this being true, the rule for new trial will be made absolute.
§ 189.60-45 American Bureau of Shipping. ( a ) The American Bureau of Shipping, with its home office at ABS Plaza, 16855 Northchase Drive, Houston, TX 77060, is hereby designated as an organization duly authorized to issue the “Cargo Ship Safety Construction Certificate” to certain oceanographic research vessels on behalf of the United States of America as provided in Regulation 12, Chapter I, of the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, and Executive Order 12234 and the certificate shall be subject to the requirements in this subpart. The American Bureau of Shipping is authorized to place the official seal of the United States of America on the certificate. This designation and delegation to the American Bureau of Shipping shall be in effect until terminated by proper authority and notice of cancellation is published in the Federal Register.
( b ) At the option of the owner or agent of a vessel on an international voyage and on direct application to the American Bureau of Shipping, the Bureau may issue to such vessel a Cargo Ship Safety Construction Certificate, having a period of validity of not more than 60 months after ascertaining that the vessel: ( 1 ) Has met the applicable requirements of the Convention; and
( 2 ) Is currently classed by the Bureau and classification requirements have been dealt with to the satisfaction of the Bureau.
( c ) When the Bureau determines that a vessel to which it has issued a Cargo Ship Safety Construction Certificate no longer complies with the Bureau's applicable requirements for classification, the Bureau shall immediately furnish to the Coast Guard all relevant information, which will be used by the Coast Guard to determine whether or not to withdraw, revoke or suspend the Cargo Ship Safety Construction Certificate.
[CGFR 67-83, 33 FR 1118, Jan. 27, 1968, as amended by CGD 77-081, 46 FR 56204, Nov. 16, 1981; CGD 90-008, 55 FR 30665, July 26, 1990; CGD 96-041, 61 FR 50735, Sept. 27, 1996: USCG-2000-7790, 65 FR 58465, Sept. 29, 2000]
#### § 308.549 Application for appointment of Cargo Underwriting Agent, Form MA-319.

Any domestic insurance company authorized to do a marine insurance business in any State of the United States may apply for appointment as a Cargo Underwriting Agent by submitting to the Maritime Administrator a letter and Form MA-399, which may be obtained from MARAD's underwriting agent or MARAD.