alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
7 . 1 i ' r,4 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

ZANE AARON TENOLD,

Petitioner,
v. WARDEN JIM SALMONSEN,

Respondent. OP 21-0048 C 7 fry " 71 1 60111, 

### JUL 20 2021
Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court State of Montana ORDER

Zane Aaron Tenold represents himself and has filed a petition for rehearing, pursuant to M.R.App.P.20(1)(a)(i)and (iii),ofthis Court's April 27,2021 Order denying his petition for habeas corpus relief because the Department of Corrections (DOC)had since correctly calculated his sentence allowing for an additional credit of73 days toward his first sentence. Tenold now argues that he is due additional credit—time while on probation— toward his sentence. Tenold points to a 2010 Judgment from the Ravalli County District Court and this language: "The Defendant shall receive credit for time served on probation from September 5,2017,to January 30,2010,the date ofarrest for his violation." He states that this credit should also be applied and that his sentence calculations are incorrect for his other two sentences. This Court did not overlook a material fact, and the April 27, 2021 Order does not conflict with Montana law. Any credit for time on probation or street time applies only once to a sentence. Section 46-18-203(7)(b), MCA (2005). That credit cannot be carried forward to apply to other sentences imposed upon revocation. Here, Tenold violated his probationary term in 2010. The District Court revoked Tenold's 2007 deferred imposition ofsentence for two,2006 offenses and imposed two,concurrent ten-year commitments to the DOC with all tirne suspended. The District Court ensured that Tenold would receive 07/21/2021

Case Number: OP 21-0048credit from September 5, 2007 through January 30, 2010, because of his good behavior

while on probation prior to his violation. (Emphasis added.) The DOC Montana State Prison Records Department would have applied that probationary credit to Tenold's sentence in 2010 when it calculated his sentence upon revocation. The Records Department calculates sentences based upon what is in the written judgment. We pointout that the District Court revoked Tenold's sentence again in 2016 because of several violations,and the courtmadeno mention ofany creditfor street time orprobationary tirne. Tenold cannotreceive adouble credit for street time when the credit was originally applied to his 2010 sentence upon revocation. Tenold points to no authority for such argument. His other arguments are without merit because as stated before,his fourth sentence runs consecutively to hisprior sentences. Tenold isnotentitled to rehearing. M. R.App.P. 20(1)(d). Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that Tcnold's Petition for Rehearing is DENIED and DISMISSED. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy ofthis Order to counsel of record and to Zane Aaron Tenold personally. DATED this 2-6

-- day ofJuly,2021.

ChiefJustice 

# g#i ..1.11„,

7
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial 
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements for P-B Equitec Real Estate
                    and is qualified in its entirety by reference
                    to such financial statements
</LEGEND>

<RESTATED>          

<CIK>               0000757191
<NAME>              P-B Equitec Real Estate
<MULTIPLIER>        1

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1996

<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-1-1996

<PERIOD-END>                    Dec-31-1996

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-Mos

<CASH>                          697,000

<SECURITIES>                    0

<RECEIVABLES>                   1,396,000

<ALLOWANCES>                    500,000

<INVENTORY>                     0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                0

<PP&E>                          0

<DEPRECIATION>                  51,387,000

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  19,634,000

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           33,346,000

<BONDS>                         1,363,000

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      5,333,000

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    33,346,000

<SALES>                         0

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                6,414,000

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   5,123,000

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              2,429,000

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    (1,138,000)

<EPS-PRIMARY>                   (16.38)

<EPS-DILUTED>                   0


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1854 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1854

To amend title 23, United States Code, with respect to the operation of 
longer combination vehicles on the Interstate System in Idaho, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 18, 2013

 Mr. Crapo (for himself and Mr. Risch) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 23, United States Code, with respect to the operation of 
longer combination vehicles on the Interstate System in Idaho, and for 
                            other purposes.

    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 ``Idaho Safe and Efficient Vehicle Act 
of 2013''.

SEC. 2. LONGER COMBINATION VEHICLES IN IDAHO.

    Section 127 of title 23, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(j) Longer Combination Vehicles in Idaho.--No limit or other 
prohibition under this section, except as provided in this subsection, 
applies to a longer combination vehicle operating on a segment of the 
Interstate System in Idaho if such vehicle--
            ``(1) has a gross vehicle weight of 129,000 pounds or less;
            ``(2) complies with the single axle, tandem axle, and 
        bridge formula limits set forth in subsection (a); and
            ``(3) is authorized to operate on such segment under Idaho 
        State law.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Jack JONES, a/k/a James B. Pope, a/k/a Ben Reeves, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-218.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 28, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
November 06, 2015

Twelfth Court of Appeals

1517 W Front St Ste 354

Tyler TX 75702-7854

Re: Yago Santain Fountain

 12-15-00073-CR

To The Honorable Clerk of the Court:

Please find enclosed a copy of the letter sent to my client regarding his right to file a PDR along 

with a copy of the certified return receipt showing the mailing of the same. 

Sincerely,

/s/Austin Reeve Jackson

ACCEPTED

12-15-00073-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

11/6/2015 2:44:50 PM

Pam Estes

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 11/6/2015 2:44:50 PM PAM ESTES Clerk
November 3, 2015

Yago Santain Fountain

Inmate 01993345

Choice Moore Unit

1700 N. FM 87

Bonham, TX 75418

Re: Opinion

 

Mr. Fountain: 

Please find enclosed a copy of the opinion issued by the Court of Appeals in your case. The 

Court has reversed your conviction.

Should you desire to do so, you do have the right to file a pro se Petition for Discretionary 

Review in the Court of Criminal Appeals. If you decide to pursue that option you must file your 

petition prior to the expiration of thirty days from the date of the court’s opinion.

I would be happy to address any questions or concerns you have if you will simply let me know. 

Sincerely,

Austin Reeve Jackson
EyeCare Centers of America, Inc.

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

Exhibit 12.1



|                                                      |  |          |   |  |          |  |          |   |  |          |  |           
|----------------------------------------------------- |  | -------- | - |  | -------- |  | -------- | - |  | -------- |  | ----------
|                                                      |  | 12/27/03 |   |  | 01/01/05 |  | 12/31/05 |   |  | 12/30/06 |  | 12/29/2007
|Net earnings (loss)                                   |  | 25,807   |   |  | 16,846   |  | (2,804   | ) |  | 10,768   |  | 25,178    
|Add: Income tax provision (benefit)                   |  | (9,600   | ) |  | 5,302    |  | 4,242    |   |  | 11,885   |  | 16,462    
|                                                      |  |          |   |  |          |  |          |   |  |          |  |           
|                                                      |  | 16,207   |   |  | 22,148   |  | 1,438    |   |  | 22,653   |  | 41,640    
|                                                      |  |          |   |  |         
|Fixed Charges:                                        |  |          |   |  |          |  |          |   |  |          |  |           
|Interest expense, net                                 |  | 20,200   |   |  | 20,216   |  | 28,969   |   |  | 31,599   |  | 25,996    
|Interest factor portion of rent expense               |  | 8,768    |   |  | 8,881    |  | 9,029    |   |  | 9,575    |  | 10,286    
|                                                      |  |          |   |  |          |  |          |   |  |          |  |           
|Total fixed charges                                   |  | 28,968   |   |  | 29,097   |  | 37,998   |   |  | 41,174   |  | 36,282    
|                                                      |  |          |   |  |         
|Earnings (loss) before income taxes and fixed charges |  | 45,175   |   |  | 51,245   |  | 39,436   |   |  | 63,827   |  | 77,922    
|                                                      |  |          |   |  |         
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                    |  | 1.56     |   |  | 1.76     |  | 1.04     |   |  | 1.55     |  | 2.15
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed May 3, 2023

. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ No. 3D22

- 1193 Lower Tribunal No. 21

- 4499 CC

________________



### Barry Kilcoyne , Appellant,

vs. 

### Joseph P. George, Jr. , Appellee.

An Appeal from the County Court for Miami

- Dade County, Stephanie Silver , Judge. South Florida Appeals, PA, and Wm. Allen Bonner , for appellant. Elliot L. Miller , for appellee.

Before LOGUE, HENDON and LOBREE , JJ. HENDON, J.2 Barry Kilcoyne , personal representative of the estate of Ralph Muir, seeks to reverse a final order of the County Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in Miami

- Dade County in favor of Joseph P. George , Jr. ’s claim for attorney’s fees arising out of the administration o f the estate. We reverse. Because the circuit court has exclusive jurisdiction over proceedings relating to the settlement of the estates of decedents, including proceedings to determine a probate lawyer’s compensation, we conclude that the county court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to determine this fee dispute. § 26.012(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2023) ; § 733.6175, Fla. Stat. (2023) ; § 733.106 ( 4), Fla. Stat. (2023) ; see also In re Est. of Udell , 501 So. 2d 1286, 1288 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986) ; Faulkner v. Woodruff , 159 So. 3d 319, 322 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (holding that “the Florida probate court has exclusive jurisdiction [over matter s relating to probate attorney’s compensation] and is obligated to review estate fees upon the petition of a proper party” ) (c iting In re Winston , 610 So. 2d 1323, 1325 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) )

. Accordingly, we reverse the order on appeal, and remand the cause with instructions to transfer the case to the circuit court for further proceedings. Due to the disposition of the jurisdict ional issue , we decline to reach the merits of the issues on appeal.3 Reversed and remanded.
Exhibit 32.2







CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Annual Report of Congoleum Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Howard N. Feist III, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 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 operations of the Company.











March 19, 2010





/s/ Howard N. Feist III


Howard N. Feist III


Chief Financial Officer








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Congoleum Corporation and will be retained by Congoleum Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL
INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF LSP-WHITEWATER LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP AS OF AND FOR THE
PERIOD ENDED JUNE 30, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         447,636
<SECURITIES>                                30,932,826
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               447,636
<PP&E>                                     167,263,637
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             205,385,138
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,828,138
<BONDS>                                    177,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  20,557,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               205,385,138
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
From: thomas.patzner@schneider-electric.com [mailto:thomas.patzner@schneider-electric.com]

Sent: Friday, October 14, 2011 11:15 AM

To: Richard Parker

Cc: Meyers, Aaron; Andrew Delaski; Ali Ghafourian (aghafourian@ermco-eci.com); Alex Hofmann; Aris
Marantan; Art Rosenfeld; Matt Miller; Robert Berman; Brian Coffey; Hirsch, Bruce R; Bruce Smith; Chris Bolduc; Caitlin Johnson; Carlos Gaytan; Charlie Drexle r; Simmons, Chuck; Silcox, Clark; Charlie Stevens; Dan Cohen; Millure, Dave; Dave Brender (dbrender@cd a.copper.org); Daniel Young; Eric Peterson; Gary Fernstrom; Greg Rosenquist; Greg Coulter; James Lass; jay.ballard@schneider -electric.com; Jennifer Tiedeman; Freeman, Jeremiah; Jerry Corkran; Jerry Schoen; Jerry Hodge; Creevy, Jim; Joanna Mauer; John Cymbalsky; Caskey, John; John Rossetti; Katie Coughlin; Kenneth.Harden@schneider-electric.com; Ken Winder; Mahesh P. Sampat; Matthew Nardotti; Michael Hyland; Michael Rivest; Meg Waltner; Ned Brush (Ned.efbrush@gmail.com); Ryan, Paul; Phil Harter; Phil Hopkinson; Puesh Kumar; Polinski, Raymond; Rob Greeson; Rick Anderson; (rjstahara @centralmoloneyinc.com); Bob Saint; Robert van Buskirk; Robin Roy; Scott Beck; Steve Nadel; Stev e Nizinski; Steve Rosenstock; Tim Ballo; Tom Eckman;
Wes Patterson; Zhimei Luo Subject: LVDT Working Group - Loading RMS values

LVDT Working Group.

There has been a number of comments on the Loading of the transformers. The data below would only address a way to determine the loading for lo w voltage transformers with existing data.

My experience putts the loading between 10-15% RMS for LVDT units

By taking end-use-split for site electricity and the hourly loading data used for the current RMS data, we can obtain a curve for LVDT that matches my experience.That being the case I suggest that the data for LVDT loading be multiplied by 50% and 57% and then regraphed using 20,000 data points instead of 10, 000 to determine the Loading for LVDT units.

Thomas Patzner | Low Voltage Transformers | Square D / Schneider Electric
1010 Airpark Center Drive | Nashville, TN 37217 |  Office: 615-844-8536 |  Five Digit Dialing: 48536  e-mail: thomas.patzner@us.schneider-electric.com |  Website: www.us.squared.com/EEXFMR

Low Voltage Transformer Technical Support  e-mail: lvgp-marketing@us.schneider-electric.com 

##  Please consider the environment before printing this email
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header History
 You are here: Census.gov ›
  History ›
  Reference › Oral Histories Skip top of page navigation
 History Main
      Agency History
        Director Biographies
          Census Facilities
          Suitland, MD
          Notable Alumni
      Innovations
        Data Collection
          Technology
      Programs
        Agriculture
          Demographic
          Housing
          Economic
          Geography
          Governments
      Through the Decades
        Fast Facts
          Overview
          Index of Questions
          Questionnaires
          Census Instructions
      Genealogy
        Decennial Census Records
          Other Resources
      Reference
        Data@Museums
          Artifacts
          Lesson Plans
          Legislation
          Maps
          Oral Histories
          Privacy & Confidentiality
          Apportionment
          Publications
 Home Page Archive
        2024
          2023
          2022
          2021
          2020
          2019
          2018
          2017
          2016
          2015
          2014    
      FAQs
        Genealogy
          Agency History
          Demographic
          Economic
          Governments
          Agriculture
          Geography
          Innovations
          Miscellaneous
  In this Section: Donald E. Young
  Jerry Cooper
  Frederick T. Knickerbocker
  Genora Louis Birdsong
  Charles D. Jones
  Harry C. O'Haver
  Arthur G. Dukakis
  William G. Bostic, Jr.
  Robert L. Hagan
  Arthur F. Young
  Conrad Taeuber
  Richard M. Scammon
  Martha Farnsworth Riche
  Daniel B. Levine
  C. Louis Kincannon
  Shirley Kallek
  John G. Keane
  Morris H. Hansen
  Edwin D. Goldfield
  A. Ross Eckler
  Joseph F. Daly
  William P. Butz
  Barbara Everitt Bryant
  Vincent Barabba
 Oral Histories As part of its ongoing mission to serve as the institutional memory of the U.S. Census Bureau, the History Staff continues to conduct interviews with retiring or retired Census Bureau employees.  These oral histories provide a special insight into census operations and planning. The careers of the employees interviewed not only include many key decisions and developments in census and survey policy and methodology (privacy and confidentiality, statistical sampling, disclosure analysis, etc.), but also illustrate how the agency and federal government have adapted to changes in presidential administrations, economic highs and lows, and national and international events. NPC EmployeesEmployees of the Census Bureau's National Processing Center,Jeffersonville, IN, in the 1950s.
 
 CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
Table 2.  Rental and Homeowner Vacancy Rates, by Area:  Third Quarter 2001 



                                    Rental vacancy rates


                           Third        Third      Standard     Standard
Area                      quarter      quarter     error on     error on
                           2001         2000       2001 rate   difference


United States..........         8.4          8.2          0.2          0.3

  Inside MAs...........         8.0          8.0          0.2          0.3
    In central cities..         8.8          8.5          0.3          0.4
    Not in central cities
    (suburbs)..........         7.1          7.5          0.3          0.4
  Outside MAs..........        10.4          9.1          0.5          0.8

 Northeast.............         5.5          5.8          0.4          0.5
 Midwest...............         9.3          9.6          0.5          0.7
 South.................        10.8         10.6          0.4          0.5
 West..................         6.6          5.7          0.3          0.5



                                    Homeowner vacancy rates


                           Third        Third      Standard     Standard
Area                      quarter      quarter     error on     error on
                           2001         2000       2001 rate   difference

United States..........         1.9          1.6          0.1          0.1

  Inside MAs...........         1.7          1.4          0.1          0.1
    In central cities..         2.3          1.8          0.1          0.2
    Not in central cities
    (suburbs)..........         1.5          1.2          0.1          0.1
  Outside MAs..........         2.4          2.4          0.1          0.2

 Northeast.............         1.3          1.2          0.1          0.2
 Midwest...............         1.8          1.3          0.1          0.2
 South.................         2.3          2.0          0.1          0.2
 West..................         1.7          1.5          0.1          0.2