alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### T. E. ASHCRAFT and others v. T. N. LEE and others.

*Practice*— Appeal—Proceedings *Concerning Roads, &c.*

1. No appeal lies to this Court from the judgment of 'the Superior Court upon a petition to discontinue a public road, heard on appeal from the action of the Board of County Commissioners.

2. Such proceeding is regulated by statute and the exercise of the power thereby, granted to the county authorities is a matter of discretion, subject to the right of appeal to the Superior Court.

*(Brodnax*v. *Groom,*64 N. C. 244, cited and approved.)

Petition to discontinue a public road, filed in Union, and removed to and heard at Spring Term, 1878, of Stanly Superior Court, before *Moore, J.*

The petition was filed by the plaintiffs before the board of township trustees, and upon the hearing before them it was refused, and' the plaintiffs appealed to the board of county commissioners, who affirmed the judgment, and they again appealed to the Superior Court. There was-much evidence in relation to the necessity, &c., of the road,, and the jury found in favor of the defendants. Judgment. Appeal by the plaintiffs.

*Mr. J. D. Shaw,*for plaintiffs.

*Messrs. N. McKay, J. F. Payne*and *S. J.*Pemberton, for defendants.

FaiRCLoth, J.

The Legislature has invested the township boards of trustees and the boards of county commissioners with full power and authority to order ¡the -laying out of public roads where necessary, and to discontinue such roads as shall be found useless, &c., &c. Bat. Rev. ch. 105, § 1; And by § 3 if any person shall appeal from the judgment *35of the board, the Superior Court shall hear the whole matter anew. The power here given is complete, and its- exercise is a discretionary matter with- the county authorities, with the right of appeal above stated. We see no authority for submitting-the question to a jury in the Superior Court unless as was suggested the Judge may call a jury to his aid.

There is authority whatever for bringing the matter before this Court, and if there was we should find much difficulty in deciding upon the usefulness or uselessness of a particular road, ferry, or bridge. It was not seriously contended that we ought to undertake it, but it was argued that we might say whether certain evidence was improperly excluded by Iiis Honor. We might do so, but for what purpose to the appellant, and what effect would it have ? The county authorities can allow or disallow these applications with or without the rejected evidence. The power is with them and we could not control it, and to direct the mere details would be utterly useless to the parties. The whole matter must remain where the Legislature placed it. *Brodnax*v. Brown, 64 N. C. 244. The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Per Curiam. Appeal dismissed.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 161 (Friday, October 3, 2008)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E2242]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          PERSONAL EXPLANATION

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. ED PERLMUTTER

                              of colorado

                    in the house of representatives

                        Friday, October 3, 2008

  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Madam Speaker, I rise today to enter into the record 
a ``yes'' vote for rollcall vote 671. I was present in the chamber on 
September 29,2008, and thought my vote had been cast on the rule but 
was not counted.

                          ____________________
```
Filed 9/8/16 P. v. French CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOSEPH A NDREW FRENCH

, Defendant and Appellant. 2d Crim. No. B2 6 8190 (Super. Ct. No. SA080855 ) ( Ventura County)

Joseph Andrew French was on a grant of post release community supervision (PRCS) (Pen. Code, § 3450 et seq.) following his release from prison f or driving under the influence causing injury

. (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a)

. ) H e was subsequently arrested while in custody and charged with possession of methamphetamine by an inmate and with a prior strike. ( Pen. Code , § § 4573.6

, 667, subd. (b). ) W hile represented by counsel and facing a maximum term of 12 years in state prison

, he agreed to plead guilty to the charge and admit that he violated his grant of PRCS. As part of the “bargain

, ” he was advised that for the methamphetamine possession he wo uld receive a grant of probation

, including a term that he serve 365 days in jail, and that for the PRCS

violation he would serve a consecutive 180 days in jail . It was also understood that to be eligible for such a disposition

, the court would strike the prior serious felony conviction.2

It was with full knowledge of his rights and these consequences and with the consent of
his counsel, that he entered his plea. At sentencing the court kept its promise. No objection was voiced by appellant or his counse l

. Appellant now voices his displeasure with the “deal.” His unhappiness is with the consecutive term of 180 days in jail ordered

for the PRCS violation.

We decline to further review the matter. ( People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 351 [“In order to encourage prompt detection and correction of error, and to reduce the number of unnecessary appellate claims, reviewing courts have required parties to raise certain issues at the time of sentencing. In such cases, lack of a timely and meaningful objectio n forfeits or waives the claim”] .) Not only was no objection raised to the court’s orders, these orders were sought by defendant and his counsel.

The judgment (order) is a ffirmed

. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

PERREN, J.

We concur:

YEGAN , J. , Acting P. J.

TANGEMAN , J.Patricia M. Murphy , Judge
Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Stephen P. Lipson, Public Defender, and Michael C. McMahon, Chief Deputy Public Defender for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, At torney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Shawn M.

Webb , Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Paul S. Thies , Deputy Attorney
General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's audited financial statements for the year ended December 31, 1998 and
is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          15,363 
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,144 
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (841)
<INVENTORY>                                          0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0 
<PP&E>                                         290,686 
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (51,529)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 317,043 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0 
<BONDS>                                        277,113 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            5,174 
<PREFERRED>                                          0 
<COMMON>                                             0 
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,150 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   317,043 
<SALES>                                              0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                51,663 
<CGS>                                                0 
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,500 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   694 
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              15,115 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (6,055)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0 
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (6,055)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0 
<CHANGES>                                            0 
<NET-INCOME>                                    (6,055)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.21)
        


</TABLE>
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 Commerce

###### Foreign-Trade Zones Board

          - [B-38-2024]

On July 3, 2024, City of Conroe, grantee of FTZ 265, submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board on behalf of Unimacts Company, within FTZ 265, in Conroe, Texas.

                    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the                     **Federal Register**                     inviting public comment (89 FR 57393, July 15, 2024). On October 31, 2024, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The production activity described in the notification was authorized, subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including section 400.14.                

      ( print page 87844)    
Dated: October 31, 2024.

Elizabeth Whiteman,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2024-25683 Filed 11-4-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Ex Parte Meeting Report 

Date: 9 March 2011 

Time: 9:00-10:00 a.m. Eastern 

Location: U.S. Department of Energy 

Organizer: Ken Salaets, Director, Information Technology Industry Council 

Purpose: To discuss industry concerns regarding the impact of new battery charger 

efficiency standards for units that power Unlimited Power Supply units.

Attendees 

Name Affiliation 

Victor Petrolati US Department of Energy 

Matthew Nardotti Navigant Consulting 

David Cassano Apple 

Steven Kuo Apple 

Jay Taylor APC by Schneider-Electric 

James Spitaels APC by Schneider-Electric 

Rona Newmark EMC (by phone) 

Martin Marzinelli HP (by phone) 

James Kardach Intel Corporation 

Henry Wong Intel Corporation 

Roy Wood Kodak (by phone) 

Ken Salaets Information Technology Industry Council 

Meeting Summary 

• DOE expects to publish a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the next few months that 

will propose energy efficiency standards for external power supplies (EPS) and battery 

chargers (BC). Uninterruptible power supplies (UPS) will be one of the product 

categories covered. This action is required by July 1, 2011 according to statute. The 

effective date for the EPS standard is two years after publication. The statute did not 

specify a date for a BC standard, but DOE is likely to issue one in the same timeframe. 

• The test procedure for BCs will be finalized in the next month or so, and will likely be 

modeled after the test procedures being established by the California Energy Commission 

(CEC) for the same products. 
2 

 2 

• Industry expressed concern about the standard’s applicability to commercial-grade UPS 

units. DOE said that the scope of the standard will be limited to consumer UPS units, 

although the definition of “consumer” is somewhat ambiguous. 

• Industry also raised concerns about the pending testing standard, particularly in terms of 

its potential to constrain additional functionality. DOE indicated that the opportunity to 

express formal comments on the testing rulemaking had closed, but indicated that 

industry could raise the issue as part of comments on the BSC/BC proposed rule. 

Next Steps 

• Industry will include in future comments recommendations on how to effectively 

delineate between commercial- and consumer-focused products.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 18, 2022

No. 04-22-00620-CR

Carlton Leroy ZIMMERMAN,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 8, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. CC678082

Honorable Brenda Chapman, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The reporter’s record was originally due November 14, 2022. On October 4, 2022, the 

court reporter filed a notification of late record stating that appellant had not requested the

record. On October 5, 2022, we issued an order instructing appellant to provide written proof to 

this court of such a request by October 17, 2022. On November 3, 2022, the court reporter filed a 

second notification of late record asking for an extension of unknown duration and stating that 

the appellant had requested the record but had not paid for it. On November 8, 2022, the court 

reporter filed the reporter’s record. We therefore WITHDRAW our request for written proof of a 

request from appellant, and we DENY the court reporter’s request as MOOT.

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 18th day of November, 2022.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ROBERT WASHINGTON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 276 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ROBERT WASHINGTON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 277 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 19th day of December, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-60144

Conference Calendar

 

ROBERT KENNETH COLLIER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:00-CV-143-P-1

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

December 11, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert Collier appeals from the district court’s order

striking his postjudgment pleading entitled “responsive motion.” 

He does not argue that issue on appeal, however, and it is

therefore waived. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th

Cir. 1993). 

This appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. 

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219- 20 (5th Cir. 1983). It is

therefore DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 774 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 774

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the deduction 
        for meal and entertainment expenses of small businesses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 13, 1999

  Mr. Breaux introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the deduction 
        for meal and entertainment expenses of small businesses.

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

SECTION 1. SMALL BUSINESSES ALLOWED INCREASED DEDUCTION FOR MEAL AND 
              ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (n) of section 274 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to only 50 percent of meal and 
entertainment expenses allowed as deduction) is amended by adding at 
the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(4) Special rule for small businesses.--
                    ``(A) In general.--In the case of any taxpayer 
                which is a small business, paragraph (1) shall be 
                applied by substituting `the applicable percentage (as 
                defined in paragraph (3)(B))' for `50 percent'.
                    ``(B) Small business.--For purposes of this 
                paragraph, the term `small business' means, with 
                respect to expenses paid or incurred during any taxable 
                year--
                            ``(i) any corporation which meets the 
                        requirements of section 55(e)(1) for such year, 
                        and
                            ``(ii) any partnership or sole 
                        proprietorship which would meet such 
                        requirements if it were a corporation.''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 1999.
                                 <all>
```
IN EQUITY.

#### Taylor, executor, v. Lucas and others.

From Chatham.

As to personal property, a residuary clause not only carries all not disposed of, but every thing that in the event turns out not to be disposed of.

But one question wits presented in this case, viz, whether a legacy left to a legatee, which lapsed by his death in the lifetime of the testator, should be divided among his next of kin, or should belong to the -widow, tvho was residuary legatee.

Fer Curiam,

after stating the question. — No rule is better established as to personal estate, though it is otherwise as to real, than that a residuary clause carries not only every thing Dot disposed of, but eyery thing that in, *216the event tarns out not to be disposed of, as by lapse and the other means specified in the cases. (1 *Ves. Jun.*109, 110. *Ambler*138. 8 *Ves. Jun.*25. 4 *Ibid 732. 15 Ibid*509.) The law raises a presumption in favour of the residuary legatee against every one except the particular legatee. The testator is supposed to deprive the residuary legatee only for the sake of the particular; and the bounty to him being prevented by death, .the residuary legatee is preferred to the next of kin,
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         152,935
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   94,822
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     37,326
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               266,773
<PP&E>                                       6,576,254
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,187,302
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,924,807
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,217,635
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        57,350
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,117,718
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,924,807
<SALES>                                      1,787,767
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,787,767
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,516,864
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             302,768
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,028,830)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.18)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.18)
        

</TABLE>
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 68

For the relief of Dr. Yuri F. Orlov of Ithaca, New York.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 19, 1999

Mr. MOYNIHAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and

referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

A BILL

For the relief of Dr. Yuri F. Orlov of Ithaca, New York.

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

3 SECTION 1. RELIEF OF DR. YURI F. ORLOV OF ITHACA, NEW

4 YORK.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi6 sion of law, Dr. Yuri F. Orlov of Ithaca, New York, shall

7 be deemed an annuitant as defined under section 8331(9)

8 of title 5, United States Code, and shall be eligible to re9 ceive an annuity.

10 (b) COMPUTATION.—For purposes of computing the

11 annuity described under subsection (a), Dr. Yuri F. Orlov

12 shall be deemed to—
2

S 68 IS

1 (1) have performed 40 years of creditable serv2 ice as a Federal employee; and

3 (2) received pay at the maximum rate payable

4 for a position above GS–15 of the General Schedule

5 (as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act)

6 for 3 consecutive years of such creditable service.

7 (c) CONTRIBUTIONS.—No person shall be required to

8 make any contribution with respect to the annuity de9 scribed under subsection (a).

10 (d) ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS.—The Director of

11 the Office of Personnel Management shall—

12 (1) apply the provisions of chapter 83 of title

13 5, United States Code (including provisions relating

14 to cost-of-living-adjustments and survivor annuity

15 benefits) to the annuity described under subsection

16 (a) to the greatest extent practicable; and

17 (2) make the first payment of such annuity no

18 later than 60 days after the date of the enactment

19 of this Act.

Æ