alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 227 (Friday, November 24, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70562-70563]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29951]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Notice of Intent To File an Application for a New License

November 17, 2000.
    a. Type of filing: Notice of Intent To File an Application for a 
New License.
    b. Project No.: 7387.
    c. Date filed: October 23, 2000.
    d. Submitted by: Erie Boulevard Hydro, LP--current licensee.
    e. Name of project: Piercefield Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: On the Raquette River near the towns of Piercefield 
and Altamount, in St. Lawrence and Franklin Counties, New York. The 
project does not occupy federal lands.
    g. Filed pursuant to: Section 15 of the Federal Power Act.
    h. Licensee contact: Jerry L. Sabattis, Erie Boulevard Hydropower, 
LP, 225 Greenfield Parkway, Suite 201, Liverpool, NY 13088 (315) 413-
2787.
    i. FERC contact: Charles T. Raabe, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a9cac1c8dbc5ccda87dbc8c8cbcce9cfccdbca87cfcccd87dcda"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a5c6cdc4d7c9c0d68bd7c4c4c7c0e5c3c0d7c68bc3c0c18bd0d6">[email protected]</span></a>, (202) 
219-2811.
    j. Effective date of current license: November 1, 1955.
    k. Expiration date of current license: October 31, 2005.
    l. Description of the project: The project consists of the 
following existing facilities: (a) A dam in five sections comprising: 
(1) A 360-foot-long, 10-foot-high earthen dike along the right bank 
(north bank); (2) a 62.5-foot-long concrete sluice structure; (3) a 70-
foot-long, 20-foot-high earthen dike having a concrete core wall; (4) a 
118-foot-long stanchion type stop log spillway; and (5) a 294-foot-
long, 22-foot-high concrete spillway with a crest elevation of 1,540.0 
feet USGS surmounted by 2-foot-high flashboards; (b) a 140-foot-long, 
45-foot-wide, 17-foot-deep concrete masonry forebay structure; (c) a 
reservoir having a surface area of 370

[[Page 70563]]

acres at a normal pool elevation of 1,542.0 feet USGS; (d) a powerhouse 
containing 3 generating units having a total installed capacity of 
2,700 kW; (e) a 3.84-mile-long, 46-kV transmission line; and (f) other 
appurtenances.
    m. Each application for a new license and any competing license 
applications must be filed with the Commission at least 24 months prior 
to the expiration of the existing license. All applications for license 
for this project must be filed by October 31, 2003.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-29951 Filed 11-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IA 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 14 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to limit 

the number of consecutive terms that a Member of Congress may serve. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 8, 2009 

Mr. PLATTS introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to 

the Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States to limit the number of consecutive terms that 

a Member of Congress may serve. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States within five years after the date of its submission 

9 for ratification: 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HJ 14 IH 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE — 

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. No person who has been a Senator for 

3 two full consecutive terms shall again be a Senator until 

4 the date that is one year after the end of such second 

5 full consecutive term. 

6 ‘‘SECTION 2. No person who has been a Representa7 tive for six full consecutive terms shall again be a Rep8 resentative until the date that is one year after the end 

9 of the sixth full consecutive term. 

10 ‘‘SECTION 3. For the purposes of this article, any 

11 term that began before the date of the ratification of this 

12 article shall not be included in determining the number 

13 of full consecutive terms that a person has been a Senator 

14 or Representative.’’. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
#### CARDWELL v. CARDWELL.

No. 10781.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Dec. 4, 1940.

Joe Burkett, of San Antonio, for appellant.

H. D. Barrow and R. R. Smith, both of Jourdanton, for appellee.

MURRAY, Justice.

This suit was instituted in the District Court of Atascosa County, Texas, by V. S. Cardwell, on July 30, 1939, against his former wife, Frances M. Cardwell, and Carl Hollingsworth, Esq., as receiver, seeking to set aside a judgment entered in that Court at its March Term, 1937, and also seeking an injunction against the receiver to prevent the threatened sale of certain property.

The petition was presented to the judge of that court, who ordered a temporary restraining order issued, restraining the receiver from making the sale until a hearing could be had, and set the cause for a hearing on the first day of the October Term of the District Court of Atascosa County, which was required to meet by statute, Art. 199, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes, on the sixth Monday after the first Monday in August, which was in 1939 the 9th day of October of that-year. .

On Monday, October 9, 1939, neither the appellant V. S. Cardwell nor his attorney appeared. ' The court continued the cause until the next day, when again neither appeared, whereupon the Court dismissed the cause for want of prosecution.

Appellant appeared several days later, but during the same term of the Court, and filed a motion ,to set aside the order of dismissal and reinstate the cause. This motion was by the court overruled and V. S. Cardwell has prosecuted this appeal.

The only reason given by appellant and his counsel for not appearing at the time the cause was set for hearing was that they were under the impression that the District Court convened in Atascosa County on October 16th, instead of on October 9th. This was an insufficient reason for *636the absence of appellant and his counsel on the day the case was set for trial. Bolls v. Galloway, 1 White & W. Civ.Cas.Ct.App. § 724.

The matter of reinstating this cause was a matter addressed to the discretion of the trial court, and there is nothing in the record to show that court abused its discretion in not reinstating the cause.

The judgment is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1393 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1393

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the luxury 
    excise tax shall not apply to certain equipment installed on a 
         passenger vehicle for the use of disabled individuals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 17, 1993

 Mr. Richardson (for himself, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Frank of Massachusetts, 
 Mr. Franks of Connecticut, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Ramstad, Mr. McDermott, 
  Ms. Roybal-Allard, Mr. Bateman, Mr. Bacchus of Florida, Mr. Neal of 
North Carolina, Mr. Towns, Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Andrews of New Jersey, Mr. 
    Sanders, Mr. Deutsch, Mr. Kreidler, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Levin, Mr. 
  LaFalce, Mr. Inglis of South Carolina, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mr. 
    Dornan, and Mr. Petri) 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 provide that the luxury 
    excise tax shall not apply to certain equipment installed on a 
         passenger vehicle for the use of disabled individuals.

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

SECTION 1. EXEMPTION FROM LUXURY EXCISE TAX FOR CERTAIN EQUIPMENT 
              INSTALLED ON PASSENGER VEHICLES FOR USE BY DISABLED 
              INDIVIDUALS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 4004(b) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to separate purchase of article and 
parts and accessories therefor) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (A),
            (2) by redesignating subparagraph (B) as subparagraph (C), 
        and
            (3) by inserting after subparagraph (A) the following new 
        subparagraph:
                    ``(B) the part or accessory is installed on a 
                passenger vehicle to enable or assist an individual 
                with a disability to operate the vehicle, or to enter 
                or exit the vehicle, by compensating for the effect of 
                such disability, or''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect as if included in the amendments made by section 11221(a) of the 
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990.

                                 <all>
```
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Paul Saltzman, Respondent, and Harold L. Wohl, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Sklar, J.), entered on January 25, 1990, which granted petitioner’s motion to confirm an arbitration award, dated March 2, 1989, and which denied respondent’s cross motion seeking to vacate the arbitration award, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Petitioner, an accountant, seeks to confirm an arbitrator’s award in his favor in the sum of $15,336.17, representing 30% of the gross billings collected by the respondent, a former member of petitioner’s accounting practice. Respondent cross-moved to vacate the award and dismiss the petition on the grounds of the alleged irrationality of the award, the untimeliness of the award, and lack of jurisdiction.

Upon review of the record, we find that the IAS court did not err in determining that the arbitrator’s award, which implicitly determined that the respondent had retained a former client of the petitioner, the Romaine Pierson Group, and that the respondent was therefore liable to the petitioner under the parties’ agreement, had a rational basis. Once authorized to resolve a dispute, arbitrators may interpret the contract provisions as they see fit, with the scope of their discretion expansive, and will be considered to have exceeded their authority only if they give a completely irrational construction to the provisions in dispute. *(Matter of Silverman [Benmor Coats],*61 NY2d 299, 308.)

Equally devoid of merit is the respondent’s contention that the arbitrator exceeded his power by rendering an untimely award, one day beyond the time within which to do so had expired. Respondent failed to preserve his objection thereto pursuant to CPLR 7507 by notifying the arbitrator, in writing, "prior to the delivery” of the award.

Finally, contrary to respondent’s assertions, we find that the IAS court properly determined that personal jurisdiction had been obtained over the respondent in accordance with CPLR 308 (2). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Sullivan, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 6595]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-3047]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-175-000]


Midwestern Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Cashout Report

February 4, 2000.
    Take notice that on January 31, 2000, Midwestern Gas Transmission 
Company (Midwestern) tendered for filing its sixth annual cashout 
report for the September 1998 through August 1999 period.
    Midwestern states that the cashout report reflects a cashout gain 
during this period of $5,742. Midwestern's cumulative losses from its 
cashout mechanism are thereby reduced to $191,532. Midwestern states 
that it will roll forward this loss into its next annual cashout 
report.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or 
before February 11, 2000. Protests will be considered by the Commission 
in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve 
to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection 
in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-3047 Filed 2-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### UNITED EMPLOYERS CASUALTY CO. v. TEER.

No. 10875.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Aug. 23, 1940.

Will R. Saunders, Claude Williams, and W. E. Johnson, all of Dallas, for appellant.

*934Charles J. Lieck and H. K. Stanfield, both of San Antonio, for appellee.

SMITH, Chief Justice.

The parties have filed their joint motion and agreement, reciting that all matters involved in this suit have been fully adjusted between the parties, and praying that in pursuance of the adjustment the judgment of the trial court be reversed and judgment here rendered that appellee Ray C. Teer do have and recover of and from appellant United Employers Casualty Company the sum of $2275 (with interest and all costs of suit), apportioned two-thirds to appellee and one-third to appellee’s attorneys.

Accordingly, and by reason of said motion and the recitations therein, and without passing upon the merits of the appeal, said motion will be granted and judgment entered as therein prayed for.
#### McCLAIN v. STATE.

No. 21191.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 6, 1940.

No attorney for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is forgery; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for seven years.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No question is presented for review.

In sentencing appellant the court failed to take note of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. Article 775, C.C.P., Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P. art. 775. Therefore the sentence is reformed in order that it may be shown that appellant is condemned to confinement in the penitentiary for not less than two nor more than seven years.

As reformed, the judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals • and approved by the Court.
exv10w6



 






Exhibit 10.6



March 29, 2005




Graham Perkins

3235 Navy Drive

Oak Hill, VA 20171


Re: COBRA and Office Space



Dear Graham:



Recently, you received a letter confirming your eligibility to participate in LCC’s 2005 Annual
Incentive Plan, including details of your target incentive amount.



Following on that communication, I wanted also to confirm the details of your agreement with LCC
International, Inc. regarding payment of COBRA premiums and loaned office space:





	 	1.  	LCC will pay in full the monthly premium for the continuance of your current medical
and dental care elections via COBRA through December 31st, 2005.
	 
	 	2.  	LCC will provide, at no cost to you, one (1) furnished office for your personal use.
This office space will be provided indefinitely or until the sooner of a) your voluntary
vacancy of the space or b) lack of availability of office space unoccupied by paying
tenants. LCC reserves the right to relocate this office at any time or at any frequency in
order to accommodate paying lessees.




Graham, if you have any questions regarding the information above, please do not hesitate to
contact me.




Best regards,




/s/ Terri




Terri Feely

Vice President, Human Resources & Administration

LCC International, Inc.

(703) 873-2399 direct
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1435 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1435

To amend title 23, United States Code, to permit the use of funds under 
 the highway bridge replacement and rehabilitation program for seismic 
              retrofit of bridges, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 23, 1993

  Mr. Mineta introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Public Works and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 23, United States Code, to permit the use of funds under 
 the highway bridge replacement and rehabilitation program for seismic 
              retrofit of bridges, 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. HIGHWAY BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND REHABILITATION PROGRAM.

    (a) Eligibility of Seismic Retrofit Projects.--Section 144(d) of 
title 23, United States Code, is amended by inserting before the period 
at the end of the third sentence the following: ``; except that a State 
may carry out a project for seismic retrofit of a bridge under this 
section without regard to whether such bridge is eligible for 
replacement or rehabilitation under this section''.
    (b) Apportionment Factor Adjustment.--Section 144(e) of such title 
is amended by inserting before the period at the end of the fourth 
sentence the following: ``and by the total cost of all projects carried 
out under this section in such State for seismic retrofit of highway 
bridges not eligible for replacement or rehabilitation under this 
section''.

                                 <all>
```
#### COTHREN v. STATE.

No. 21135.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 12, 1940.

J. Mitch Johnson, of San Saba, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

' GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was convicted in the county Court of a violation' of the liquor laws of this State, and fined $250.

A former conviction was alleged and offered as an enhancement of the penalty. The number of this former conviction was 1744 in such county court. It appears from the record that such cause No. 1744 was successfully used in the trial of a former case against this same appellant, the county court number being 1786, our number 21134, Jack Cothren v. State, - S.W.2d -,1 this day decided, and in consonance with the doctrine that a former conviction for a like offense can be successfully used but once for the purpose of enhancing the punishment, this judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

1

 Not released by court at date of publication.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1155

To amend title 5, United States Code, to restore the 3-year basis recovery

rule with respect to annuities under chapters 83 and 84 of such title

for Federal income tax purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 1, 1993

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was referred

jointly to the Committees on Post Office and Civil Service and Ways and

Means

A BILL

To amend title 5, United States Code, to restore the 3-

year basis recovery rule with respect to annuities under

chapters 83 and 84 of such title for Federal income

tax purposes.

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

3 (a)(1) Subchapter III of chapter 83 of title 5, United

4 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the follow5 ing:

6 ‘‘§ 8352. Three-year basis recovery rule

7 ‘‘Notwithstanding any provision of the Tax Reform

8 Act of 1986 and any amendment made by such Act, the
2

•HR 1155 IH

1 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be applied and ad2 ministered with respect to any amount paid under this

3 subchapter for any period beginning after the date of the

4 enactment of this section as if section 72(d) of the Inter5 nal Revenue Code of 1954 (as in effect on October 21,

6 1986) had never been repealed.’’.

7 (2) The analysis for chapter 83 of title 5, United

8 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the follow9 ing:

‘‘8352. Three-year basis recovery rule.’’.

10 (b)(1) Subchapter VI of chapter 84 of title 5, United

11 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the follow12 ing:

13 ‘‘§ 8470a. Three-year basis recovery rule

14 ‘‘Notwithstanding any provision of the Tax Reform

15 Act of 1986 and any amendment made by such Act, the

16 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be applied and ad17 ministered with respect to any amount paid under this

18 chapter for any period beginning after the date of the en19 actment of this section as if section 72(d) of the Internal

20 Revenue Code of 1954 (as in effect on October 21, 1986)

21 had never been repealed.’’.

22 (2) The analysis for chapter 83 of title 5, United

23 States Code, is amended by adding after the item relating

24 to section 8470 the following:

‘‘8470a. Three-year basis recovery rule.’’.
3

•HR 1155 IH

Æ
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 21

- 00284

- CV

Ronald Dean STRICKLAND

, Appellant

v.

IHEARTMEDIA , I nc

. , and Stephen L. Schaefer Appellees

From the 198th Judicial District Court

, Bandera County, Texas Trial Court No. CVDO

- 21

- 0000063 Honorable M. Rex Emerson , Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ

, JUSTICE CHAPA , AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, we affirm the trial court’s order

. Appellant is unable to affor d payment of court costs; no costs are taxed in this appeal.

SIGNED January 11, 2023.

_____________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
Case 2:22-cr-00097-Z-BR Document 78 Filed 01/20/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 219
Case 6:22-cv-00032-H Document 152 Filed 06/17/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID 4996
#### MOUNTAIN TOWNSITE CO. v. BRANCO et al.

No. 10680.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Oct. 4, 1939.

Park Street and W. C. Douglas, both of San Antonio, for appellant.

Vinson, Elkins, Weems & Francis and Simon Frank, all of Houston, and Schlesinger, Schlesinger & Goodstein, of San Antonio, for appellees.

SMITH, Chief Justice.

In this case the several parties have filed a joint motion to affirm the judgment from which the appeal was perfected, it being represented that the matters in controversy have been fully settled between the parties. Upon that premise, and without passing upon the merits of the appeal, the motion will be granted and the judgment affirmed accordingly. ,
#### WOFFORD v. STATE.

No. 21097.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 29, 1940.

Rehearing Denied June 26, 1940.

M. H. Barton, of Overton, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is theft; the punishment, confinement in the penitentiary for two' years.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception. No question is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the .Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.