alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
63 :‘* f 

l .- 

‘735 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Bonorable Jam. a.D8rt 

cowl ty Attorney 

Kendall County 

Boerne, Texas 

Pear Hr. D8rtr 

been given our carey years or 8ger who 

of unmound mind, mthat t.he judpmnt entered jn Kerr 

County to 

Y.Q. 

judge her OP being a feeble-minded person, CO!?- 

ml ttin c her the Austin State School. 

The ~tatutes,mthoriring the appointment ef 8 pardlant 

mder which the proceedlncs In Kerr County were Instituted and 

judpnrent entered, are for the salient purpose of horlng a euardIan appoInted for the nernons named t,herein, rho, in the judgement of tl-e Count.7 Court, ape not. competent to hanrlle their 

rroyertp. 
‘7X 

Bonorable Jom. 8. Dart - page 2 

We have other prorlolon8 in the wtatuter for tbe 

trial of lnmne persons, and in virtue thereof are ordered 

~aopflned In the 8tatr ~otltutlonr for perrons of Mmound 

mind. UnquertlmaEl~, the oourt that appoints a guardian 

for a psraon of mmound mind would aof in that prOeoeding 

h8re autberity to oommlt the party to tbo inatltution ln 

Texas ?or the lnw~e. 

The propor method of prooedure, therefore, is ta 

file the oomplalnt In Kendall Ceuntr, and haTa the trial 

court determine whether ehe 1s nor ot mah feebler mind 88 

requirea her to be oonflned in the Au&in State Sahool, and 

if ao, enter judgment and proaercl aeoordlngI~~
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8191 

To require the Administrator of General Services to issue guidance to clarify 

that Federal agencies may pay by charge card for the charging of 

Federal electric motor vehicles, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 8, 2020 

Mr. KHANNA (for himself and Mr. GONZALEZ of Ohio) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform 

A BILL 

To require the Administrator of General Services to issue 

guidance to clarify that Federal agencies may pay by 

charge card for the charging of Federal electric motor 

vehicles, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Charging Helps Agen5 cies Realize General Efficiencies Act’’ or the ‘‘CHARGE 

6 Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 8191 IH

1 SEC. 2. PAYMENT BY CHARGE CARD FOR CHARGING FED2 ERAL ELECTRIC MOTOR VEHICLES. 

3 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this Act— 

4 (1) the term ‘‘Administrator’’ means the Ad5 ministrator of General Services; 

6 (2) the term ‘‘charge card’’— 

7 (A) means a card, plate, coupon book, or 

8 other means existing for the purpose of obtain9 ing money, property, labor, or services; and 

10 (B) includes— 

11 (i) a card issued under the GSA 

12 SmartPay program; and 

13 (ii) a Fleet Services card; 

14 (3) the term ‘‘covered electric motor vehicle’’ 

15 means a passenger carrier that is— 

16 (A) a passenger motor vehicle; and 

17 (B) an electric motor vehicle; 

18 (4) the term ‘‘electric motor vehicle’’ has the 

19 meaning given the term in section 601 of the Energy 

20 Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13271); 

21 (5) the term ‘‘electric motor vehicle charging 

22 station’’ means a battery-charging station that per23 mits the transfer of electric energy (by conductive or 

24 inductive means) to a battery or other storage device 

25 in an electric motor vehicle; and 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 8191 IH

1 (6) the terms ‘‘Federal agency’’ and ‘‘passenger 

2 carrier’’ have the meanings given those terms in sec3 tion 1344(h) of title 31, United States Code. 

4 (b) GUIDANCE.—Not later than 180 days after the 

5 date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall 

6 issue guidance to clarify that each Federal agency may, 

7 in accordance with section 1344 of title 31, United States 

8 Code— 

9 (1) charge a covered electric motor vehicle at a 

10 commercial electric motor vehicle charging station; 

11 and 

12 (2) pay for a transaction described in para13 graph (1) with a charge card. 

14 (c) ISSUANCE OF CHARGE CARDS.—Not later than 

15 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Ad16 ministrator shall issue to each Federal agency a charge 

17 card for each covered electric motor vehicle of the Federal 

18 agency that may be used by an officer or employee of the 

19 Federal agency to pay for charging the covered motor ve20 hicle in accordance with the guidance issued under sub21 section (b). 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Attachment 6

State and Local Tax Table

Case 3:15-md-02672-CRB Document 2843-9 Filed 01/31/17 Page 1 of 3
State State Tax Rate Avg. Local Tax Rate Combined Rate/Formula

Alabama 2.00% 1.88% 3.88%

Alaska None 1.78% 1.78%

Arizona 5.60% 2.65% 8.25%

Arkansas 6.50% 2.80% (on first $2,500) 6.50% + $70

California 7.50% 0.98% 8.48%

Colorado 2.90% 4.62% 7.52%

Connecticut

6.35% (vehicles under 

$50,000) or 7.75% (vehicles 

over $50,000)

0.00%

6.35% (vehicles under 

$50,000) or 7.75% (vehicles 

over $50,000)

Delaware 4.25% 0.00% 4.25%

District of 

Columbia

7.00% (vehicles 3,500 - 4,999 

lbs.) or 8.00% (vehicles 5,000 

lbs. or above)

0.00%

7.00% (vehicles 3,500 - 4,999 

lbs.) or 8.00% (vehicles 5,000 

lbs. or above)

Florida 6.00% 0.66% (first $5,000) 6.00% + $33.00

Georgia 7.00% 0.00% 7.00%

Hawaii 4.17% - 4.71% 0.00% 4.44%

Idaho 6.00% 0.00% 6.00%

Illinois 6.25% 2.39% 8.64%

Indiana 7.00% 0.00% 7.00%

Iowa 5.00% 0.00% 5.00%

Kansas 6.50% 2.10% 8.60%

Kentucky 6.00% 0.00% 6.00%

Louisana 5.00% 5.00% 10.00%

Maine 5.50% 0.00% 5.50%

Maryland 6.00% 0.00% 6.00%

Massachusetts 6.25% 0.00% 6.25%

Michigan 6.00% 0.00% 6.00%

Minnesota 6.50% 0.00% 6.50%

Mississippi 5.00% 0.00% 5.00%

Missouri 4.23% 3.64% 7.86%

Montana 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Nebraska 5.50% 1.37% 6.87%

Nevada 6.85% 1.13% 7.98%

New Hampshire 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

New Jersey 7.00% 0.00% 7.00%

New Mexico 3.00% 0.00% 3.00%

New York 4.00% 4.49% 8.49%

North Carolina 3.00% 0.00% 3.00%

North Dakota 5.00% 0.00% 5.00%

Ohio 5.75% 1.39% 7.14%

Oklahoma

3.25% (new vehicles) or $20 

on first $1,500 +3.25% on 

balance (used vehicles)

0.00% 3.25% * (vehicle value - 

$1,500) + $20

Oregon 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%

Attachment 6: State and Local Tax Table 

Case 3:15-md-02672-CRB Document 2843-9 Filed 01/31/17 Page 2 of 3
Pennsylvania 6.00% 1.50% 7.50%

Rhode Island 7.00% 0.00% 7.00%

South Carolina 5.00% (capped at $300) 0.00% 5.00% (capped at $300)

South Dakota 4.00% 0.00% 4.00%

Tennessee 7.00% 2.75% (on first $3,200) 7.00% + $88

Texas 6.25% 0.00% 6.25%

Utah 5.95% 0.74% 6.69%

Vermont 6.00% 0.17% 6.17%

Virginia 4.15% 0.00% 4.15%

Washington 6.80% 2.39% 9.19%

West Virginia 5.00% 0.00% 5.00%

Wisconsin 5.00% 0.41% 5.41%

Wyoming 4.00% 1.42% 5.42%

Attachment 6: State and Local Tax Table 

Case 3:15-md-02672-CRB Document 2843-9 Filed 01/31/17 Page 3 of 3
#### SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, a public corporation, Appellant, v. Earnest A. CRUISE et al., Appellees.

No. 72-682.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 11, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6493

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIAM PATRICK MILLER, a/k/a Scoop, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CR-98-7-MU) Submitted: June 12, 2001 Decided: June 21, 2001 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Patrick Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: William Patrick Miller appeals the district court’s order denying his motion filed under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33, in which he sought a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no abuse of discretion. United States v. Christy, 3 F.3d 765, 768 (4th Cir. 1993) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Miller , No. CR-98-7-MU (W.D.N.C. filed Feb. 15, 2001; entered Feb. 16, 2001). Miller also asserts for the first time on appeal that he is entitled to a new trial on drug quantity in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000). We reject his claim because there is no error, plain or otherwise, given that Miller received a 235-month sentence. See United States v. White , 238 F.3d 537, 542 (4th Cir. 2001) (noting that statutorymaximum is twenty years when drug quantity is not charged as element of offense and found by jury beyond a reasonable doubt), cert. denied , U.S. , 2001 WL 487738 (U.S. June 4, 2001) (No. 00- 9732). 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.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 21.1


                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES
                               OF THE REGISTRANT



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                     Jurisdiction of Incorporation
                     Subsidiary                                             or  Organization
                     ----------                                             ----------------
<S>                                                            <C>
    1.  P-Com United Kingdom, Inc.                                                   Delaware

    2.  P-Com (BARBADOS) FSC Limited                                                 Barbados

    3.  P-Com Finance Corporation                                                    Delaware

    4.  P-Com, Italia S.p.A.                                                          Italy

    5.  P-Com Network Services, Inc.                                                 Delaware

    6.  P-Com GmbH                                                                   Germany

    7.  Telematics, Inc.                                                             Virginia

    8   P-Com Services (UK) Limited                                                  England

    9.  P-Com Corp., Int'l (Cayman) Ltd.                                          Cayman Islands

    10. P-Com Finance Corp.                                                          Delaware
</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1b

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
following Registration Statements of our report dated March 14, 2008, except for Note 25, as to which the date is March 25, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of FGIC Corporation and Subsidiaries included as
Exhibit 99.2 in Amendment No. 1 to The PMI Group, Inc.s Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2007.



|                              |  |        
|----------------------------- |  | -------
|Registration Statement Number |  | On Form
|                              | 
|333-123049                    |  | S-8    
|                              | 
|333-32190                     |  | S-8    
|                              | 
|333-47473                     |  | S-8    
|                              | 
|333-63122                     |  | S-8    
|                              | 
|333-66829                     |  | S-8    
|                              | 
|333-76742                     |  | S-8    
|                              | 
|333-81679                     |  | S-8    
|                              | 
|033-99378                     |  | S-8    
|                              | 
|333-48035                     |  | S-3    
|                              | 
|333-67125                     |  | S-3    
|                              | 
|333-29777                     |  | S-4    
|                              | 
|333-102761                    |  | S-8    
|                              | 
|333-107747                    |  | S-3    
|                              | 
|333-110044                    |  | S-3    
|                              | 
|333-130103                    |  | S-8    
|                              | 
|333-130102                    |  | S-8    
|                              | 
|033-92636                     |  | S-8    
|                              | 
|333-133095                    |  | S-3    
|                              | 
|333-136727                    |  | S-8    



|                     
|---------------------
|                     
|/s/ Ernst & Young LLP
|New York, NY         
|March 26, 2008
Exhibit 23.1



            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 of our report dated April 12, 2006, relating to the consolidated
balance sheets of The Beard Company and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 2005 and
2004, and the consolidated statements of operations, shareholders' equity
(deficiency) and cash flows for each of the years in the three year period ended
December 31, 2005, which report appears in the December 31, 2005, annual report
on Form 10-K of The Beard Company.

                                          /s/ COLE & REED P.C.

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
August 15, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-28-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1996
<CASH>                                      23,478,584
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  253,848
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            93,977,317
<PP&E>                                      10,815,880
<DEPRECIATION>                                 957,769
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             107,757,868
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,141,770
<BONDS>                                     78,750,759
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    27,651,071
<OTHER-SE>                                (19,716,774)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               107,757,068
<SALES>                                        205,459
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               205,459
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,949,428
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                74,189
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 6,465
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           3,743,436
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (11,588,890)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (11,588,890)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (11,558,890)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.71)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 11.1


                STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                    (In Thousands Except Per Share Amounts)


                                                                      Fully
                                                          Primary   Diluted (1)

Year ended December 31, 1996

Weighted average shares outstanding....................      10,096
Effect of dilutive common stock equivalents(1).........          --     N/A
                                                           --------
Weighted average shares outstanding for EPS purposes...      10,096
Net loss...............................................    $(42,267)
                                                           --------
Net loss per share (2).................................    $  (4.19)
                                                           ========

(1)  As  of  December  31,  1996, options to purchase 1,464,377 shares of common
     stock were outstanding.

As the Company had a net loss for the year ended  December 31,  1996,  the fully
diluted earnings per share is not applicable.
**EXHIBIT 21.01**

 

**SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGSITRANT**

 
| **SUBSIDIARY**             | ** ** | **JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION** |
|----------------------------|------------|-----------------------------------|
|                       |       |                              |
| Poet Holdings, Inc         |       | Delaware                          |
|                       |       |                              |
| Poet Software  Corporation |       | Delaware                          |
|                       |       |                              |
| Versant Gmbh               |       | Germany                           |
|                       |       |                              |
| Versant Ltd.               |       | United Kingdom                    |
|                       |       |                              |
| Mokume Software, Inc. |       | California                        |
|                       |       |                              |
| FastObjects, Inc.     |       | California                        |
|                       |       |                              |
| Versant India              |       | India                             |

 

----
#### Willie Charles HALL, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 71-491.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 14, 1971.

Habeas corpus denied.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 1815** 

MARILYN BEY ANKH UNU

- EL , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. LQ MANAGEMENT, LLC; DARRYL PAGE, General Manager, La Quinta Inn & Suites; TEMPLE H. WEISS, Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer; MARK M. CHLOUPEK, Executive Vice President & General Counsel; MIKKI HUGHES, VP Employee Relations & Management , Defendants

– Appellees , and HEIDI C. HARTMANN, Attorney , Defendant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Newport News
. Raymond A. Jackson , District Judge. ( 4:12

- cv - 00162

- RAJ

- DEM )

Submitted : October 29, 2013 Decided: November 7, 2013

Before DAVIS, WYNN, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Marilyn Bey Ankh Unu

- El, Appellant Pro Se.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Marilyn Bey Ankh Unu

- El appeals the district court ’ s order dismissing this action for failure to properly effect service of process . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Unu

- El v. LQ Mgmt., LLC , No. 4:12

- cv - 00162

- R AJ

- DEM (E.D. Va. May 24, 2013) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
## Docket Number: FAA- 2012 - 0493 **Contacts.** With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed?

Organization Person Contacted **Date** Response **National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti**  8/31/11 **Regional Airline Association** 8/31 /11 **Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman**  8/31/11 **ATA Joe White**  8/31/11
1 

## NO. 12

- 20

- 00033

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE

OF ROBERT HUGH MCNAI R, JR. §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO

. 2

HENDERSON COUNTY, TE XAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c).

A party who is not excused by statute or the appellate rules from paying costs must pay

-- at the time an item is presented for filing

-- whatever fees are required by statute or Texas Supreme

Court order. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 5. An appellate court may enforce Rule 5 by any order that is just.

Id

. A fter giving ten days ’ notice , an appellate court may dismiss an appeal because the appellant

failed to comply with a requirement of the appellate rules, a court order, or a notice from the clerk

requiring a response or other action within a specified time. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c).

On February 3 , 2020 , the C lerk of this Court notified Appellant , Sue Syler McNair, that

the filing fee in this appeal is due. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 5. Appellant was informed that failure to

remit the filing fee on or before February 13 would result in the Court’s taking appropriate action,

including dismissal of the case without further notice. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c ). The date for

remitting the filing fee passed, and Appellant has not paid the fee or otherwise shown that she is

excused from paying the fee

. 1
Because Appellant failed, after notice, to comply with Rule 5, the appeal is dismissed

. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c).

1 The case information sheet provided by the Henderson County District Clerk’s Office reflects that Appellant has not been declared indigent.2 Opinion delivered February 19, 2020. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.3 

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

FEBRUARY 19, 2020

NO. 12

- 20

- 00033

- CV

IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF ROBERT HUGH MCNAIR, JR.

Appeal from the County Court at Law No

. 2

of Henderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 78

- 2017CCL2)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being

considered, it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that this

appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed ; and that this decision be certified to the court below

for observance.

By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.