alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Maroh 20, 1939 

Xonorablo T. IL Trlmble 

Yirrt Amletant State SUpOrintennd@t 

Auetln, Texarr 

Dear Sir: 

eblr than to 

sohools. 

Uaroh lb, 1999, where- 

), or th&~$f-ay~i;lon as to whether 

tend o he aoorad ad igb schools and have thrir 

suoh pujlle may attuition aid out 

11 Ho. 185, belug ths Rural Aid and Equalization 

Yund **propX$$2 $11 ror tbs current blrnnlun, is Chapter 474, 

found at page or the Geneurcrl and Spaoial Laws d the 45th 

Legislature, Regular Ses~l~. section 10 thereof reads as follows: 

“High School Tuttion. It is hereby expressly provided that a sufrlolent amunt or rumis appropriated by 

this Aot ahall be used ror the paymant or hi@i school Wltlon not to exoeed Seven and 60/100 ($7.500) Dollam per ‘. 

pupil per month. High School tuition shall ba mid aooordlng to the provision8 of Xouee Bill No. 158, General 
Hon. T. Y; Triable, &oh 20, 1939, Page 2 

Law8, Regular Se88lon, Forty-fourth Legislature, and 

subjlot to the llmltation and restrlotion proridrd In 

Seotlon?d of thir Aot lmporlng tax obllgatlon8 on eendlng dietriot. Providing that the prorlrlo~ or thi8 

Seotlon shell not apply to -granting of 8ld under teram 

;;l;~~nSeotlon for vocational eduoatlon or orlpgled 

It In rurther provided that high rohool tuition aid: a8 ebwe ret out, 8hall be granted for pup118 

tranrferred to outride high rohool8 rrotathe Waoo State 

Home at Waoo, ald from the Alabama and Couehattl Indian 

Reaervatlon near Llrlngrton; provided the aid 80 granted 

shall not exoeed the per oaplta tuition obarged other 

8ohool.s' tranaierred high rohool pupil8 by the high 

8ohooln arrected thereby." 

House Bill No. 158, General Law8, Regular Seeslon 44th 

Leglelature, referred to in-said Seotlon 10, cohstltutss Art&Id 

29221 (l), Revised Civil Statuterr, a8 amsnded, and a reading thereor disclose8 authority for the payment oi tuition for a high 8ohool 

pup11 who Is traneferred from one dlstrlot to another on acoount ot 

the tact that the grade to which such pupil has been promoted 18 

not taught In the home dlstrlot. We a8su8m rrom your letter that 

the p&per grades are taught in the Training Sohool. 

A8 the law la now wrltten, there is no authority for the 

paymsnt or tuition ror the pup118 you Inquire about out or the 

State Equalization Fund, and your questlca must be answered in the 

negative. 

Your8 very truly 

A!l'TORREYGEbIERALO?TEXAS 

Se 

(SIONED) 

BY 

Glenn R. Lewis 

AssIstant 

GRL:N 

A;'PROVZD 

GEAxLDC.M (SIGNED) 

Ai-TORNXY GENHiuL OF TEXA+
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 182 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 182

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          May 25, 1993.
    Resolved, That the election contest of Bill McCuen, contestant, against Jay 
Dickey, contestee, relating to the office of Representative from the Fourth 
Congressional District of Arkansas, is dismissed.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
RegistrationNumber
    
    Description of Registration Statement
    
    Filing Date33-49052
    
    The B.F.Goodrich Company Key Employees Stock Option Plan  Form S-8
    
    June 26, 1992333-03293
    
    The B.F.Goodrich Company Stock Option Plan  Form S-8
    
    May 8, 1996333-19697
    
    The B.F.Goodrich Company Savings Benefit Restoration Plan  Form S-8
    
    January 13, 1997333-53879
    
    Directors Deferred Compensation Plan  Form S-8
    
    May 29, 1998333-53881
    
    Rohr, Inc. 1982 Stock Option Plan, Rohr, Inc. 1989 Stock Incentive Plan
and Rohr, Inc. 1995 Stock Incentive Plan  Form S-8
    
    May 29, 1998333-76297
    
    Coltec Industries Inc. 1992 Stock Option Plan and Coltec Industries
Inc. 1994 Stock Option Plan for Outside Directors  Form S-8
    
    April 14, 1999333-77023
    
    The B.F.Goodrich Company Stock Option Plan and Goodrich Corporation
2001 Equity Compensation Plan  Form S-8
    
    April 26, 1999333-60210
    
    Goodrich Corporation Stock Option Plan  Form S-8
    
    May 4, 2001333-60208
    
    Goodrich Corporation Employee Stock Purchase Plan  Form S-8
    
    May 4, 2001333-98165
    
    Shelf Registration for Debt Securities, Series Preferred Stock, Common
Stock, Stock Purchase Contracts and Stock Purchase Units  Form S-3
    
    August 15, 2002333-107866
    
    Goodrich Corporation Employees Savings Plan  Form S-8
    
    August 12, 2003333-107867
    
    Goodrich Corporation Wage Employees Savings Plan  Form S-8
    
    August 12, 2003333-107868
    
    Goodrich Corporation Savings Plan for Rohr Employees  Form S-8
    
    August 12, 2003333-109247
    
    Goodrich Corporation Directors Deferred Compensation Plan  Form S-8
    
    September 29, 2003333-123721
    
    Goodrich Corporation Outside Director Deferral Plan  Form S-8
    
    March 31, 2005333-124244
    
    Goodrich Corporation 2001 Equity Compensation Plan  Form S-8
    
    April 22, 2005333-151477
    
    Goodrich Corporation Amended and Restated 2001 Equity Compensation Plan
 Form S-8
    
    June 6, 2008333-151478
    
    Goodrich Corporation 2008 Global Employee Stock Purchase Plan  Form S-8
    
    June 6, 2008
 /s/ Ernst & Young LLP
| (1)   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section a 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of the Company. |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  August 13, 2009 | /s/ Ronald E. Heineman                                              |
|----------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                             | Ronald E. Heineman                                                  |
|                             | Chief Executive Officer and President (Principal executive officer) |
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     Exhibit 12

GTE South Incorporated
STATEMENT OF THE RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

(Thousands of Dollars)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  Nine Months Ended
                                                                  September 30, 1997
                                                                  ------------------
<S>                                                               <C>
Net earnings available for fixed charges:
  Income from continuing operations                               $          214,430
  Add - Income taxes                                                         131,854
       - Fixed charges                                                        47,065
                                                                  ------------------
Adjusted earnings                                                 $          393,349
                                                                  ==================
Fixed charges:
  Interest expense                                                $           42,374
  Portion of rent expense
     representing interest                                                     4,691
                                                                  ------------------
Adjusted fixed charges                                            $           47,065
                                                                  ==================

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                                              8.36
</TABLE>
#### MARLER HOLDING CO., Inc., a corporation, Louis P. Leri, “Gus” Rubino, Sol Feldman and Robert Taylor, Appellants, v. RUTTGER HOTEL CORP., a corporation, Donald W. Ruttger, Max J. Ruttger and Rosie S. Ruttger, Appellees.

No. 69-187.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 14, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Stewart F. LaMotte, Jr., Judge.

Dismissed as to Appellant-Louis P. Leri only.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MA Y 31, 2019

NO. 03

- 18

- 00374

- CV

Instill Corporation, Appellant

v.

Glenn Hegar, Comptroller of Public Accounts of The State of Texas; and Ken Paxton,

Attorney General of The State of Texas, Appellee s

APPEAL FROM THE 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES KELLY AND S MITH

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE SMITH

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on March 9, 2018. Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no reversible error

in the trial court’s ju dgment . Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial court’s judgment

. The

appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
Program No 864-S Term 08/01/14 To 07/31/15

TITLE: CRS SEMINAR POSTCARDS

ECOPRINT I3LOGIX McDONALD & EUDY INC. NPC S&S GRAPHICS CURRENT CONTRACTOR

SILVER SPRING, MD. DENVER, CO TEMPLE HILLS, MD. CLAYSBURG, PA. LAUREL , MD. McDONALD & EUDY INC.

BASIS OF

ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION AWARD

UNIT RATE COST UNIT RATE COST UNIT RATE COST UNIT RATE COST UNIT RATE COST UNIT RATE COST

I. PREPRESS OPERATIONS:

System Timework Operations.........................

.............................per hour.................................. 3 $65.00 $195.00 $125.00 $375.00 $75.00 $225.00 $150.00 $450.00 $95.00 $285.00 $75.00 $225.00

II. PRINTING, BINDING, PACKING AND DISTRIBUTION:

Postcards..........................................................................

.............................per postcard.......................................

1 Makeready and/or Setup.............................................. 3 $300.00 $900.00 $75.00 $225.00 $375.00 $1,125.00 $640.00 $1,920.00 $806.00 $2,418.00 $325.00 $975.00

2 Running Per 100 Copies................................................ 600 $6.00 $3,600.00 $20.00 $12,000.00 $6.50 $3,900.00 $4.00 $2,400.00 $3.75 $2,250.00 $6.00 $3,600.00

CONTRACTOR TOTALS $4,695.00 $12,600.00 $5,250.00 $4,770.00 $4,953.00 $4,800.00

DISCOUNT 2.00% $93.90 0.00% $0.00 1.00% $52.50 0.25% $11.93 5.00% $247.65 1.00% $48.00

DISCOUNTED TOTALS $4,601.10 $12,600.00 $5,197.50 $4,758.07 $4,705.35 $4,752.00

AWARDED
* After examining appellant’s brief and the appellate record, this panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would notmaterially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted w ithout oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. T he court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R . 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### FEB 27 2003 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

RANDY DALE SMITH, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. T.C. PETERSON, Warden; UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS, Federal Correctional Institution at El Reno, Oklahoma, Respondents - Appellees. No. 02-6301 (D.C. No. 01-CV-1089-R) (W.D. Oklahoma)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before EBEL , HENRY and HARTZ , Circuit Judges.
Pro se Petitioner Randy Dale Smith is currently inc arcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution in El Reno, Oklahoma. He filed this petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, arguing that h e has been wrongly denied credit on the federal sentence he is currently serv ing.- 2 -

Smith was incarcerated in an Oklahoma prison on state charges in 1996 when he was loaned to federal authorities, pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, for prosecution on federal charges. Smith argues first that while on loan for the federal charges (to which he ultima tely pled guilty), he should have received credit towards the federal sentence h e ultimately received. Second, he argues that because the federal sentence and sta te sentence arose out of the same transaction, they should have been designated to run concurrently instead of consecutively. Finally, he argues that because his federal sentence was not calculated properly, he has been wrongly forced to serve that sentence on an installment basis. The district court referred Smith’s petition to a m agistrate judge, who recommended that the petition be denied. After rev iewing the magistrate’s report de novo, the district court adopted its recommendat ions and denied the petition. Our review of the record, the parties’ briefs and t he magistrate’s thorough treatment of Smith’s petition leads us to AFFIRM th e district court’s denial of the petition for habeas corpus for substantially the re asons stated in the magistrate’s report.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

David M. Ebel Circuit Judge
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Norman J. SPENCER v. CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS, New Orleans, La.

No. 54265.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 4, 1974.

In re: Norman J. Spencer applying for Writs of Habeas Corpus and Mandamus.

Application for mandamus denied, since trial judge acted on last habeas corpus application on April 24, 1973. District court has. no record of habeas petition filed in July, 1973 by relator.
Exhibit 32.2
 Certification Required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)
  (1)
    
    the accompanying Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the
Report), filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/  Randy L. KotlerRandy L. KotlerExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### RESERVE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Evon BLACKWELL et al., Appellees.

No. 72-847.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 26, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
From: Colleen McKaughan/R9/USEPA/US

To: EBakken@Tep.com, JYockey@Tep.com, 

Cc: Gregory Nudd/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Eugene Chen/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Geoffrey Glass/R9/USEPA/US@EPA, Shaheerah 

Kelly/R9/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 11/06/2012 01:50 PM

Subject: EPA Information for TEP Sundt

Erik and Jeff,

Here is the information that I promised - a summary of information for the Sundt power plant, plus our 

contractor report. Our staff engineers are in the process of reviewing this material now, so if you notice 

any errors in the documents, we would be interested in that information. We wanted to give you an 

opportunity to look at the materials, and then we would like to schedule a conference call with you at your 

convenience to go over any questions that you might have.

Regarding next steps, we have to propose action on the Arizona Regional Haze Plan by December 8, 

2012. If we disapprove any portions of the plan we will have to propose federal measures. Our deadline 

to propose federal measures is March 8, 2013. If TEP would like to submit information to EPA for our 

consideration, we would like to receive that information no later than the first week of January, 2013.

I am going to Navajo tomorrow, but I'm back on Thursday. If you have questions in the meantime, Greg 

Nudd is the project lead. Greg can be reached at 415-947-4107. Thank you for your cooperation on 

these issues.

Colleen W. McKaughan

Associate Director, Air Division

USEPA, Region 9

(520) 498-0118

(See attached file: EGU Costs_Ch3 (TEP Irvington-Sundt only).xlsx)(See attached file: WA5-12 

Task 7 Deliverable - BART Analysis Report (Sundt4 ONLY)_final.docx)
[No. 1085-1.

Division One— Panel 1.

April 3, 1972.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Harold Ray Miller, *Appellant.*
# Official Journal L 210/2021

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 210 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6414 June 2021 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 210

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6414 June 2021

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Regulation (EU) 2021/943 of the European Central Bank of 14 May 2021 amending Regulation (EU) 2015/534 on reporting of supervisory financial information (ECB/2021/24) | 1 |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/944 of 3 June 2021 on the extension of the periods for the collection of statements of support for certain European citizens’ initiatives pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2020/1042 of the European Parliament and of the Council
  (notified under document C(2021) 3879) | 45 |
| | * | Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/945 of 10 June 2021 concerning a draft order notified by Romania as regards information on the freshness of fish
  (notified under document C(2021) 4052)

   (
  1
  ) | 48 |
| | | RECOMMENDATIONS |
| | * | Commission Recommendation (EU) 2021/946 of 3 June 2021 on a common Union Toolbox for a coordinated approach towards a European Digital Identity Framework | 51 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Regulation (EU) 2021/943 of the European Central Bank of 14 May 2021 amending Regulation (EU) 2015/534 on reporting of supervisory financial information (ECB/2021/24)

1

DECISIONS

*

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/944 of 3 June 2021 on the extension of the periods for the collection of statements of support for certain European citizens’ initiatives pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2020/1042 of the European Parliament and of the Council
  (notified under document C(2021) 3879)

(notified under document C(2021) 3879)

45

*

Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2021/945 of 10 June 2021 concerning a draft order notified by Romania as regards information on the freshness of fish
  (notified under document C(2021) 4052)

   (
  1
  )

(notified under document C(2021) 4052)

1

48

RECOMMENDATIONS

*

Commission Recommendation (EU) 2021/946 of 3 June 2021 on a common Union Toolbox for a coordinated approach towards a European Digital Identity Framework

51

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
1

 The petitioner also appears to be challenging guilty pleas to undisclosed offenses in 1986 and

1984. T he reco rd, howe ver, does not conta in copies of these judgm ents. No netheles s, his cha llenge to

these convictions under the post-conviction statute mu st also fail for the reason stated in this order.

2

 The petition in this case was filed after May 10, 1995, and is therefore governed by the

provision s of the 1 995 Po st-Con viction Pro cedure Act. See Comp iler’s Notes, T.C.A. § 40-30-201 (1997).

FILED

February 3, 1999

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate C ourt Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON

BOBBY J. LOVE, )

)

Petitioner, ) C. C. A. NO. 02C01-9809-CR-00261

)

 vs. ) SHELBY COUNTY

)

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) No. P-20160

)

Respondent. )

O R D E R

This matter is before the Court upon the state’s motion to affirm the

judgment of the trial court in accordance with Rule 20, Rules of the Court of Criminal

Appeals. This case represents an appeal from the dismissal of the petitioner’s petition

for post-conviction relief. On July 22, 1998, the petitioner filed a post-conviction petition

challenging the validity of his guilty plea to robbery with a deadly weapon in 1988.1 The

petitioner alleges numerous errors at the guilty plea hearing, including the ineffective

assistance of counsel and the failure to advise him that the conviction could be used to

enhance future sentences. Finding that the statute of limitations had expired, the trial

court dismissed the petition without a hearing.

Pursuant to T.C.A. § 40-30-202(a)2

, a person in custody under a sentence

of a court of this state must petition for post-conviction relief within one year of the date

of the final action of the highest state appellate court to which an appeal is taken or, if

no appeal is taken, within one year of the date on which judgment became final. The

Post-Conviction Procedure Act provides several limited exceptions to the one-year

statute of limitations, however none of them are applicable to the present case. See §

40-30-202(b). The petition in this case was filed well beyond the applicable statute of
3

 The pe tition would als o be barred und er the pre vious thre e year statu te of limitation s. See

T.C.A. § 40-30 -102 (19 90) (rep ealed); Passa rella v. State, 891 S.W .2d 619, 624 (Tenn. Crim . App.),

perm. to app. denied, (Tenn. 1994).

2

limitations, and is, therefore, untimely.3

 Accordingly, the post-conviction court properly

dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing. T.C.A. § 40-30-206(b).

The state’s motion is granted. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that

the judgment of the trial court is affirmed by order in accordance with Rule 20, Rules of

the Court of Criminal Appeals. It appearing to the Court that the petitioner is indigent,

costs of this proceeding shall be taxed to the state.

________________________________

JOHN EVERETT WILLIAMS, JUDGE

________________________________

DAVID G. HAYES, JUDGE

________________________________

JOE G. RILEY, JUDGE
Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002



I, David Crane, the Chief Executive Officer of International Power plc, certify that to the best of my knowledge (i) the Form 20-F fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of International Power plc.



|       |  | /s/    David Crane      |  | Date: April 29, 2003
|------ |  | ----------------------- |  | --------------------
|Name:  |  | David Crane             |  |                     
|Title: |  | Chief Executive Officer |  |