alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 847 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to eliminate origination fees 

on Federal Direct loans. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 18, 2021 

Mr. BRAUN (for himself, Ms. SINEMA, Mr. COONS, Mr. HAWLEY, Mr. 

WARNOCK, and Ms. WARREN) introduced the following bill; which was 

read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, 

and Pensions 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to eliminate 

origination fees on Federal Direct loans. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Student Loan Tax 

5 Elimination Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 847 IS

1 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF ORIGINATION FEES ON FEDERAL 

2 DIRECT LOANS. 

3 (a) REPEAL OF ORIGINATION FEES.—Subsection (c) 

4 of section 455 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 

5 U.S.C. 1087e(c)) is repealed. 

6 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

7 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to loans made 

8 under part D of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 

9 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1087a et seq.) for which the first dis10 bursement of principal is made, or, in the case of a Fed11 eral Direct Consolidation Loan, the application is received, 

12 on or after March 27, 2020. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
Howard Marc Spector

TBA # 00785023

SPECTOR & COX, PLLC

12770 Coit Road, Suite 850

Dallas, Texas 75251

(214) 365-5377

FAX: (214) 237-3380

EMAIL: hspector@spectorcox.com

PROPOSED ATTORNEY FOR THE DEBTOR

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

§

IN RE: §

§

Builders Direct Sales Group, LLC § Case No. 23-30745-11

§

Debtor. § (Chapter 11)

§

CERTIFICATE OF NO OBJECTION

COMES NOW, Builders Direct Sales Group, LLC (the “Debtor”), by and through its

undersigned counsel, hereby certify that no objections, responses or requests for hearing have 

been timely filed with the Court or served upon the Debtor with respect to the Application for 

Final Order Pursuant to § 327(a) of the Bankruptcy Code Authorizing the Employment and 

Retention of Spector & Cox, PLLC as Counsel for the Debtor in Possession. The Debtor further 

certifies that the notice period provided under Local Rule 9007 for the United States Bankruptcy 

Court for the Northern District of Texas has expired.

Dated: June 27, 2023.

Case 23-30745-swe11 Doc 34 Filed 06/27/23 Entered 06/27/23 11:34:06 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 2
Respectfully submitted,

 /s/ Howard Marc Spector 

Howard Marc Spector

TBA #00785023

SPECTOR & COX, PLLC

12770 Coit Road, Suite 850

Dallas, Texas 75251

(214) 365-5377

FAX: (214) 237-3380

EMAIL: hspector@spectorcox.com

PROPOSED COUNSEL FOR THE DEBTOR

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on June 27, 2023, a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing was served via electronic means to all parties who receive ECF notice in this case.

 /s/ Howard Marc Spector 

Howard Marc Spector

Case 23-30745-swe11 Doc 34 Filed 06/27/23 Entered 06/27/23 11:34:06 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1996             OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1995             NOV-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996             OCT-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1                       1
<CASH>                                          12,482                  64,356
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,175,388               1,901,695
<ALLOWANCES>                                    85,000                  72,000
<INVENTORY>                                    118,490                 583,149
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,349,919               2,626,691
<PP&E>                                      10,225,834              17,461,468
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,773,222               6,670,474
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,816,003              14,285,398
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,489,276               3,527,105
<BONDS>                                      2,144,467               6,819,195
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                         6,101                   7,346
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,576,255               2,983,256
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,816,003              14,285,398
<SALES>                                      6,694,074               8,105,140
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,694,074               8,105,140
<CGS>                                        3,815,784               4,517,885
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,815,784               4,517,885
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             307,746                 487,391
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                365,152                   2,008
<INCOME-TAX>                                   156,098                     800
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   209,054                   1,208
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.040                   0.000
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
1 

No. CV-02073-13-02

LUFKIN INDUSTRIES, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS 

MACHINES CORP., et al., 

Defendant. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

ANGELINA COUNTY, TEXAS

159TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NOTICE OF APPEAL 

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.1, defendant International Business 

Machines Corporation (“IBM”) hereby gives notice of its intent to appeal. IBM desires to appeal 

the trial court’s Final Judgment signed on September 10, 2015, together with all written orders, 

rulings, and rulings by operation of law adverse to IBM, including but not limited to the denial of 

IBM’s motions for directed verdict, IBM’s overruled charge objections, IBM’s denied requests 

for inclusion in the charges, denials of IBM’s motions to strike expert witnesses, and denials of 

IBM’s motions to disregard jury answers and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. This 

appeal is taken from the 159th District Court of Angelina County, Texas, the Honorable Paul 

White presiding, and is taken to the Twelfth Court of Appeals in Tyler, Texas and to the Texas 

Supreme Court, if necessary. 

 

Filed 9/10/2015 11:00:21 AM

Reba Squyres, District Clerk

Angelina County, Texas

By: Robin Crain, 

Deputy Clerk

ACCEPTED

12-15-00223-CV

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

9/10/2015 2:47:22 PM

Pam Estes

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 9/10/2015 2:47:22 PM PAM ESTES Clerk
2 

Respectfully submitted, 

YETTER COLEMAN LLP 

By: ____________________________

Reagan W. Simpson 

State Bar No. 18404700 

Marc Tabolsky 

State Bar No. 24037576 

909 Fannin, Suite 3600 

Houston, Texas 77010

(713) 632-8000

(713) 632-8002 (Fax) 

rsimpson@yettercoleman.com 

mtabolsky@yettercoleman.com 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT IBM 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that, on September 10, 2015, this document was served on the following counsel 

for plaintiff by electronic means: 

Murry B. Cohen 

mcohen@akingump.com 

Jim Wetwiska 

jwetwiska@akingump.com 

Holli Pryor-Baze 

hpryorbaze@akingump.com 

AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 

1111 Louisiana, 44th Floor 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Scott C. Skelton 

sskelton@skeltonslusher.com 

SKELTON SLUSHER BARNHILL WATKINS WELLS 

1616 South Chestnut Street 

Lufkin, Texas 75901 

______________________________________ 

 Reagan W. Simpson
Case 3:04-cv-01861-B Document 51 Filed 12/23/2004 Page 1 of 21
Case 3:04-cv-01861-B Document 51 Filed 12/23/2004 Page 2 of 21
Case 3:04-cv-01861-B Document 51 Filed 12/23/2004 Page 3 of 21
Case 3:04-cv-01861-B Document 51 Filed 12/23/2004 Page 4 of 21
Case 3:04-cv-01861-B Document 51 Filed 12/23/2004 Page 5 of 21
Case 3:04-cv-01861-B Document 51 Filed 12/23/2004 Page 6 of 21
Case 3:04-cv-01861-B Document 51 Filed 12/23/2004 Page 7 of 21
Case 3:04-cv-01861-B Document 51 Filed 12/23/2004 Page 8 of 21
Case 3:04-cv-01861-B Document 51 Filed 12/23/2004 Page 9 of 21
Case 3:04-cv-01861-B Document 51 Filed 12/23/2004 Page 10 of 21
Case 3:04-cv-01861-B Document 51 Filed 12/23/2004 Page 11 of 21
Case 3:04-cv-01861-B Document 51 Filed 12/23/2004 Page 12 of 21
Case 3:04-cv-01861-B Document 51 Filed 12/23/2004 Page 13 of 21
Case 3:04-cv-01861-B Document 51 Filed 12/23/2004 Page 14 of 21
Case 3:04-cv-01861-B Document 51 Filed 12/23/2004 Page 15 of 21
Case 3:04-cv-01861-B Document 51 Filed 12/23/2004 Page 16 of 21
Case 3:04-cv-01861-B Document 51 Filed 12/23/2004 Page 17 of 21
Case 3:04-cv-01861-B Document 51 Filed 12/23/2004 Page 18 of 21
Case 3:04-cv-01861-B Document 51 Filed 12/23/2004 Page 19 of 21
Case 3:04-cv-01861-B Document 51 Filed 12/23/2004 Page 20 of 21
Case 3:04-cv-01861-B Document 51 Filed 12/23/2004 Page 21 of 21
# C_2018032EN.01000901.xml

| 29.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/9

---

Order of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság — Hungary) — Zoltán Rózsavölgyi, Zoltánné Rózsavölgyi v Unicredit Leasing Hungary Zrt., Unicredit Leasing Immo Truck Zrt.

(Case C-259/17) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 94 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice - Consumer protection - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Loan contract denominated in a foreign currency - Insufficient information regarding the factual and regulatory context of the dispute in the main proceedings and the reasons justifying the need for an answer to the questions referred for a preliminary ruling - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2018/C 032/13)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Referring court

Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Zoltán Rózsavölgyi, Zoltánné Rózsavölgyi

Applicants:

Defendants: Unicredit Leasing Hungary Zrt., Unicredit Leasing Immo Truck Zrt.

Defendants:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

The request for a preliminary ruling made by the Budai Központi Kerületi Bíróság (Central District Court, Buda, Hungary), by decision of 31 March 2017, is manifestly inadmissible.

---

(1)  OJ C 256, 7.8.2017.

1

---
STATE of Louisiana v. John ESTEEN, III

NO. 2019-KO-0214

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 22, 2019

Denied.

GUIDRY, J., recused.
# C_2017256EN.01001501.xml

| 7.8.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 256/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.8.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 256/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad (Bulgaria) lodged on 29 May 2017 — Geocycle Bulgaria EOOD v Direktor na direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Veliko Tarnovo, pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

(Case C-314/17)

(2017/C 256/13)

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Geocycle Bulgaria EOOD

Appellant:

Respondent: Direktor na direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’ — Veliko Tarnovo, pri Tsentralno upravlenie na Natsionalnata agentsia za prihodite

Respondent:

Question referred

Question referred

| 1. | Is there a breach of the principles of fiscal neutrality and effectiveness of the common system of value added tax under the provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax if, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, VAT is levied twice on the same supply, once under the general rules, by the supplier showing the tax in the sales invoice, and a second time, by the customer being charged by means of a tax adjustment notice according to the reverse charge mechanism, and if in practice the right to deduct input VAT is refused and national law makes no provision for the VAT shown in the supplier’s invoice to be rectified following the conclusion of the tax audit procedure? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is there a breach of the principles of fiscal neutrality and effectiveness of the common system of value added tax under the provisions of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (1) of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax if, in a case such as that in the main proceedings, VAT is levied twice on the same supply, once under the general rules, by the supplier showing the tax in the sales invoice, and a second time, by the customer being charged by means of a tax adjustment notice according to the reverse charge mechanism, and if in practice the right to deduct input VAT is refused and national law makes no provision for the VAT shown in the supplier’s invoice to be rectified following the conclusion of the tax audit procedure?

1

---

(1)  OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1.

1

---
Case 2:05-cv-00089-J Document 12 Filed 06/23/05 Page 1 of 1 PageID 35
Moses JACKSON v. ALABAMA BOARD OF PARDONS & PAROLES

CR-16-1051

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 8, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
M.F., Jr. v. B.D.

2160767

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

October 3, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report ofScheid Vineyards, Inc. (the “Registrant”) on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31,2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Michael S. Thomsen, the Chief Executive Officer andPresident of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatbased on my knowledge:

 

(1)  TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

(2)  Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Registrant.

 

 
| * * | */s/**Michael S. Thomsen* |
|----------|---------------------------|
|     | Michael S. Thomsen        |
|     | Chief Financial Officer   |
|     | March 30, 2005       |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 104 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 104

  To amend title 54, United States Code, to prohibit the extension or 
   establishment of national monuments in Arizona except by express 
           authorization of Congress, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2025

Mr. Biggs of Arizona introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                 to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 54, United States Code, to prohibit the extension or 
   establishment of national monuments in Arizona except by express 
           authorization of Congress, 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 ``Protecting Arizona from Federal Land 
Grabs Act''.

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON EXTENSION OR ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL MONUMENTS 
              IN ARIZONA.

    Subsection (d) of section 320301 of title 54, United States Code, 
is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``or Arizona'' after ``Wyoming''; and
            (2) by inserting ``or Arizona'' after ``Wyoming''.
                                 <all>
```
Case 3:03-cv-01261-BF Document 23 Filed 04/26/05 Page 1 of 8 PageID 94
 

 Case 3:03-cv-01261-BF Document 23 Filed 04/26/05 Page 2 of 8 PageID 95
 

 Case 3:03-cv-01261-BF Document 23 Filed 04/26/05 Page 3 of 8 PageID 96
 

 Case 3:03-cv-01261-BF Document 23 Filed 04/26/05 Page 4 of 8 PageID 97
 

 Case 3:03-cv-01261-BF Document 23 Filed 04/26/05 Page 5 of 8 PageID 98
 

 Case 3:03-cv-01261-BF Document 23 Filed 04/26/05 Page 6 of 8 PageID 99
 

 Case 3:03-cv-01261-BF Document 23 Filed 04/26/05 Page 7 of 8 PageID 100
 

 Case 3:03-cv-01261-BF Document 23 Filed 04/26/05 Page 8 of 8 PageID 101
**EXHIBIT 31.1****NATIONAL INTERSTATE CORPORATION****SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 302(a) CERTIFICATIONS**I, Alan R. Spachman, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of National Interstate Corporation;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.November 7, 2006     BY: /s/ Alan R. Spachman Alan R. Spachman    Chairman of the Board and President    (Principal Executive Officer)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

MICHAEL R. ROEHRS, §

 §

Plaintiff, §

 §

v. § Civil Action No. 3:05-CV-829-M (BH)

 §

CONESYS, INC. et al., §

 §

Defendants. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, & RECOMMENDATION

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Court has under consideration the Findings, Conclusions, & Recommendation of the

United States Magistrate Judge on Plaintiff’s Motion for Review of Bill of Costs, filed August 15,

2007. No objections were filed. The District Court reviewed the proposed Findings, Conclusions,

& Recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court accepts the Findings, Conclusions, &

Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Review of Bill of Costs is GRANTED, in part, and Defendants shall

recover $12,776.56 in taxable court costs.

SIGNED this 21 day of March, 2008. st

_________________________________

BARBARA M. G. LYNN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-60658

Summary Calendar

____________

Marcus Quin Butler, 

Petitioner—Appellant,

versus

Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 

Respondent—Appellee.

______________________________

Appeal from a Decision of the

United States Tax Court

Tax Court No. 16660-22

______________________________

Before Duncan, Oldham, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Marcus Quin Butler, Texas prisoner # 2353422, moves for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the Tax Court’s dismissal of 

his petition for lack of jurisdiction and its denial of his motion to vacate. To 

proceed IFP on appeal, Butler must demonstrate that he is a pauper and that 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 28, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-60658 Document: 00516731229 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/28/2023
No. 22-60658

2

he will raise a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 

562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982).

Butler’s brief identifies no error in the Tax Court’s rulings and 

contains no substantive arguments as to why his appeal is not frivolous. He 

has therefore abandoned any such arguments. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 

222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993); Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 

F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Because he has failed to identify any issue of 

arguable merit, Butler’s motion to proceed IFP is DENIED, and his appeal 

is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Carson, 689 F.2d at 586; see also 5th Cir. 

R. 42.2. 

Case: 22-60658 Document: 00516731229 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/28/2023
Derrick HOLMES v. STATE

CR-16-0574

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

October 6, 2017 Reh. denied November 17, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.