alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AUUTIN *a. TIcam 

WILL& W1IA?!.KBN 

*x-rOHN*:Y G~iV~ex&iI. 

February 16, 1960 

Honorable Doug Crouch 

Criminal District Attorney 

Tarrant County 

Fort Worth, Texas 

Opinion No. WW-800 

Re: Liablllty of Fort 

Worth Independent 

School District 

for certain excise 

Dear Mr. Crouch: taxes. 

Your recent opinion request calls for a determination of whether the Fort Worth Independent School 

District is liable for the excise tax imposed upon radios, television sets, phonographs and component parts 

thereof, by Article 20.02, Vernon's Civil Statutes 

(House Bill 11, Acts of the'56th Legislature, Third 

Called Session, 1959, effective September 1, 1959). 

Attorney General's Opinion WW-721, rendered 

November 12, 1959, Is controlling on the issue of liability. There It was pointed out that no express state exemption from the tax was provided, but to the contrary, 

that "this State, any agency, institution, political subdivision or instrumentality of this State" were expressly 

designated as "persons" liable for the tax. See 20.01 (a) 

and (p), s.cit. - 

The lnhlbitlon against payment of the taxes embodied in Section 6 of Article VIII of the Texas Constltution, which prevents,money being drawn from the State, 

Treasury except In pursuance of specific appropriation 

made by law, Is not applicable to the instant situation. 

Payments for the articles enumerated by Article 2Q.02 are 

not "drawn" from the State Treasury, but are made from 

school district funds subject to the control of the school 

district authorities. Consequently, It appears that the 

Fort Worth Independent School District cannot escape payment of the tax in question. This conclusion is buttressed, 
Honorable Doug Crouch, page 2 (~~-800) 

if' not compelled, by the case of State v. City of El Paso, 

143 s.w.2d 366 (1940) which held that the City of El Paso 

was liable for the excise tax on gasoline used by the City 

which was purchased in the State of New Mexico. 

SuMMAriY 

The Fort Worth Independent School 

District is liable for the excise 

tax Imposed upon radios, television 

sets, phonographs and component 

parts thereof, by Article 20.02, 

Vernon's Civil Statutes (House 

Bill ll,, Acts of the 56th Legislature, Third Called Session, 1959, 

effective September 1, 1959). 

Yours very truly, 

JNP:mfh 

WILL WILSON 

Attorney General of Texas 

,T Y 

-wlPb 

Jack N. Price 

Assistant 

APPROVED: 

OPINION CoMMITTEE 

W. V. Geppert, Chairman 

Jot Hodges, Jr. 

Marvin H. Brown, Jr. 

Leon F. Pesek 

Cecil C. Camma,ck, Jr. 

REVIEWED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BY: Leonard Passmore
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4804-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2024-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-4804-DR), dated July 23, 2024, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This amendment was issued August 21, 2024.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Kentucky is hereby amended to include the following area among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of July 23, 2024.

Bell County for Public Assistance.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2024-20483 Filed 9-10-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
EX-4.3






Exhibit 4.3

Withdrawal Form




VERAMARK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.




2008 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN




NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF FUNDS




     The undersigned participant in the Veramark Technologies, Inc. 2008 Employee Stock Purchase
Plan hereby notifies the Company that he or she hereby withdraws the excess funds from the plan
from the offering period just ending. He or she hereby directs the Company to pay to the
undersigned as promptly as practicable all the payroll deductions credited to his or her account
with respect to such Offering Period. The undersigned understands that they are not withdrawing
from the plan, and that they will continue to have payroll deductions until such time that they do
withdraw from the plan.



	 	 	 
	 

	 	Name and Address of Participant:
	 
	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 
	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 
	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 
	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 
	 	 
	 

	 	Signature:
	 
	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 
	 	 
	 

	 	Date:
	 
	 	 
	 

	 	 
	 
	 	 
	RETURN COMPLETED FORM TO:

	 	ACCOUNTING DEPARTMENT
	 

	 	ATTN: STOCK PURCHASE PLAN






 - 10 -
Exhibit
      10.89

     

    AGREEMENT

     

    THIS
      AGREEMENT
      (“Agreement”)
      dated
      November __, 2008 is among Richard Berman (“Berman”)
      and
      National Investment Managers Inc., a Florida corporation (“NIM”).
      

     

    WHEREAS,
      in
      October 2008, Berman, the Chairman of the Board of Directors of NIM, has
      requested that his annual fee payable to Berman for his services to be performed
      in 2009 in the amount of $54,000 (the “2009 Fee”) be prepaid;

     

    WHEREAS,
      NIM has determined that the prepayment of the 2009 Fee does not violate Section
      402 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act as the prepayment is not considered a personal
      loan requiring the repayment of such funds.  

     

    WHEREAS,
      NIM, in light of the fact that Berman has provided an exemplary level of service
      to NIM, paid the 2009 Fee in October 2008; 

     

    NOW,
      THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants, conditions
      and promises contained herein, the parties agree as follows:

     

    	1.  	
            The
              prepayment of the 2009 Fee to Berman by NIM is hereby authorized.
              

          


     

    	2.  	
            In
              the event that Berman were to be terminated, resign or retire, or for
              any
              reason whatsoever, including a change of control in which Berman is
              terminated, Berman will not be required to repay the 2009 Fee.
              

          


     

    	3.  	
            This
              Agreement may be executed (including by facsimile transmission) with
              counterpart signature pages or in two or more counterparts, each of
              which
              shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute
              one
              and the same instrument.

          


     

    IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date set
      forth in the first paragraph above.

     

    
      	 	National
              Investment Managers Inc.
	 	 	 	 	 
	 
              	  	 
              	 
              	  
	
              /s/
                Richard Berman

            	 	 	
              By:

            	
              /s/
                Steven Ross

            
	 	 	 	 	 
	
              Richard
                Berman

            	 	 	
              Name:
                

            	
              Steven
                Ross

            
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	
              Title:

            	
              Chief
                Executive Officer and Director
#### The Ohio National Bank, Trustee, *v.*Boone et al., Appellees; Hawkins et al., Appellants. 

(No. 28811

Decided October 22, 1941.)

*Messrs. Pretsman <& Dillon, Messrs. Wilson $ Rector, Messrs. Griffith <$ Griffith*and *Messrs. Eagleson <& Eagleson,*for appellees.

*Mr. Wilbur E. Benoy, Mr. Russell G. Saosby*and *Mr. H. Leonard DeKalb,*for appellants.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Williams, Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman and Bettman, JJ., concur.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2300 

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

111 Market Street in Saugerties, New York, as the ‘‘Maurice D. Hinchey 

Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 11, 2018 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND (for herself and Mr. SCHUMER) introduced the following 

bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 111 Market Street in Saugerties, New York, 

as the ‘‘Maurice D. Hinchey Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MAURICE D. HINCHEY POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

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

5 Postal Service located at 111 Market Street in Saugerties, 

6 New York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Maurice 

7 D. Hinchey Post Office Building’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2300 IS

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

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Maurice D. Hinchey 

3 Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


lotter on DSKBCFDHB2PROD with BILLS
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 60505 Summary Calendar

JOSE ISABEL HERRERA-LAZO,

Petitioner

v.
JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, III, U. S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A093 286 415

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
Jose Isabel Herrera

- Lazo, a citizen of El Salvador, seeks rev iew of a decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (B IA) dismissing his appeal of an immigration judge ’s denial of his motion to reopen seeking to set aside a 198 6 order deporting him in abstentia. We decline to disturb the BIA’s ruling. “[M] otions to reopen deportation proceedings are disfavored, and the moving party bears a heavy burden.” Altamirano-Lopez v. Gonzales , 435 F.3d

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 14, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-60505 Document: 00514114345 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/14/2017No. 16

- 60505

2 547, 549 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Our authority in this case is circumscribed. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(b)(5)(D). Reviewing for abuse of discretion, we conclude that the BIA’s decision must stand because it “is not capricious, racially invidious, utterly without foundation in the evidence, or otherwise so irrational that it is arbitrary rather than the result of any perceptible rational approach.” Singh v. Gonzales , 436 F.3d 484, 487 (5th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Even liberally construed, Herrera -Lazo’s pro se brief posits at best conclusory assertions a nd points to no record evidence showing that he did not receive notice of his deportation merits hearing or th at he is otherwise entitled to reopening. See Matter of Haim , 19 I . & N. Dec. 641, 642 (BIA 1988)

. Given that Herrera

- Lazo ’s truncated plea for BIA relief rested on conclusory assertions rather than evidence , the BIA’s denial of relief cannot be said to be arbitrary, capricious, or irrational. See Singh, 436 F.3d at 487

. PETITION DENIED. Case: 16-60505 Document: 00514114345 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/14/2017
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4804-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2024-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-4804-DR), dated July 23, 2024, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This amendment was issued August 2, 2024.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the Commonwealth of Kentucky is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of July 23, 2024.

Harlan and Perry Counties for Public Assistance.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2024-20501 Filed 9-10-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
#### HOLMES v. STATE.

No. 19791.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 11, 1939.

For former opinion, see 120 S.W.2d 595.

Martin & Shipman, of Abilene, for appellant.

Otis Miller, Dist. Atty., of Anson, and Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty.) of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The state, by its district attorney, has ffiled a motion for a rehearing in which it is contended that we erred in reversing the judgment of the trial court. After ■a most careful review of the record in the light of the state’s motion, we remain of the opinion that the cause was properly disposed of on appellant’s motion for a rehearing. This court must confine it•self to the record and cannot decide cases •upon affidavits and other matters dehors the record. If we attempted to do so, we would experience an endless task of trying to decide controversies between the state and the accused which were not supported by the record. See Weeks v. State, 134 Tex.Cr.R. 69, 113 S.W.2d 532; McBride v. State, 93 Tex.Cr.R. 257, 246 S.W. 394; Davidson v. State, 109 Tex.Cr.R. 251, 4 S.W.2d 74.

The state’s motion for a rehearing is overruled.

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.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6248

RUBEN BENJAMIN SNIPES,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THEODIS BECK, Secretary, North Carolina

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District

Judge. (CA-02-887)

Submitted: July 15, 2004 Decided: July 21, 2004

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronnie Monroe Mitchell, Coy E. Brewer, Jr., MITCHELL, BREWER,

RICHARDSON, ADAMS, BURNS & BOUGHMAN, Fayetteville, North Carolina,

for Appellant. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Ruben Benjamin Snipes, who is no longer a state prisoner,

seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the report and

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his petition

filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Snipes has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF USCS INTERNATIONAL, INC. AS OF
MARCH 31, 1998 FOR THE THREE MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           9,503
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   94,972
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      5,238
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               123,236
<PP&E>                                         197,075
<DEPRECIATION>                                  97,107
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 244,501
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           65,816
<BONDS>                                          4,611<F1>
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,171
<OTHER-SE>                                     141,450<F2>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   244,501
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                78,528
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   46,577
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                21,521<F3>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 153
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,277
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,008
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              6,269
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     6,269
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .26
<FN>
<F1>CONSISTS OF NOTES PAYABLE AND BONDS PAYABLE
<F2>CONSISTS OF ADDITIONAL PAID-IN CAPITAL, RETAINED EARNINGS, TREASURY STOCK AND
FOREIGN CURRENCY TRANSLATION ADJUSTMENTS
<F3>CONSISTS OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND SELLING, GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
EXPENSES
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Attachment 1

Response to NRDC FOIA Request

FOIA-HQ-2014-001290

March 7, 2014

On August 8, 2013 EPA asked the following question of nine companies in the HCFC-22 market. While 

only a limited number of entities, this group comprises allowance holders as well as others that have a 

significant role in the HCFC-22 market:

Please provide the number of pounds (or kilograms) of virgin and reclaimed HCFC-22 (not 

including HCFC-22 produced for use as a feedstock) owned and held in inventory in the United 

States by your company as of the 31st of December in the years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 

2012. Please also include inventory that was held off-site on your behalf. Do not include 

inventory that was on your property but owned by another entity.

Aggregate data from the nine companies’ responses:

Amount of virgin HCFC-22 owned 

and held in inventory (as of 

December 31 of each year) in 

metric tons (MT)

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

57,867 61,461 63,071 61,857 50,997
#### RAND v. STATE.

No. 16952.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 17, 1934.

Allan K. Pattillo, of Houston, for appellant.

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

CHBISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is theft; the punishment, confinement in jail for 30 days.

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

The judgment is affirmed.

PEB OUBIAM.

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.