alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### GREENSBORO BANK AND TRUST CO. v. B. S. ROYSTER, et al.

(Filed 26 October, 1927.)

1. Equity — Judgments—Findings of Fact.

In a bill in equity the facts of tbe controversy should be made to appear on appeal.

Appeal by Greensboro Bank & Trust Company from *Devin, J.,*at Chambers, 2 April, 1927. From Granville.

*A. W. Graham & Son for Morton and Watkins, purchasers.*

*Hester & Booker for appellants.*

Per Curiam.

This was a motion in the cause made by S. Y. Morton and E. 0. Watkins to have the interest on the unpaid part of the purchase price of land remitted after 25 March, 1925. The purchasers alleged that the Greensboro Bank & Trust Company as commissioners sold them certain lands in Granville County, known as the Pitchford *800land, at the price o£ $9,103.18; that the terms of sale were 15% casb, 10% additional upon confirmation of the sale, and 75% in three equal annual installments with interest at 6% — the purchasers to have the privilege of making payment at an earlier date; that they had made the initial payment of 25% ($2,275.80); that on 25 March, 1925, they notified the bank’s attorney that they had the money on deposit to pay the remainder due and that they would not pay interest after that date. The deed was tendered them 10 January, 1927. The purchasers contended that they were liable *for*$6,827.38 with interest only from 25 March, 1925.

An answer was filed in which the material allegations upon which the motion was based were denied. It was adjudged that the commissioner execute and deliver a deed to the purchasers upon their paying the balance of the purchase money with interest thereon after 25 March, 1925. The commissioner excepted and appealed.

THe record comprises the allegations upon which the purchasers based their motion and the answer thereto; and upon this record it was ordered that the interest be remitted as prayed.

The judgment does not contain such findings of fact as are necessary to a final determination of the controversy. In equitable matters in which this Court has a right to find the facts it may do- so even if they have not been found by the lower court; but the record presents only matters of law and the facts should be set out in the judgment. We therefore remand the cause without decision in order that all the facts in reference to the negotiations between the purchasers and the commissioner may be found and embodied in the judgment. *Bradley v. Jones,*76 N. C., 204; *Weil v. Everett,*83 N. C., 685; *Pearce v. Elwell,*116 N. C., 595.

Remanded.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

September 4, 2012

s0827

Order 

September 4, 2012

144395

KELLI BALL RAKOZY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 144395

COA: 300880

Washtenaw CC: 10-000394-CZ

ADVANCE PRINT & GRAPHICS, INC., and

GARY M. HAMBELL,

Defendants-Appellees. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 29, 2011 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 23 (Thursday, February 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 5993]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02227]



[[Page 5993]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date: Wednesday February 10, 2016, 10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.

Place: Room 837-C, Enter on the Fourth Floor, Bethesda Towers, 4330 
East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.

Status: Commission Meeting--Open to the Public.

Matter to be Considered: Briefing Matter: Fiscal Year 2016 Operating 
Plan.
    A live webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at www.cpsc.gov/live.

Contact Person for More Information: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: February 2, 2016.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 2016-02227 Filed 2-2-16; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 24
- 0208 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. THERESA MARIE WALKER,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including November 15 , 2024, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 3 2024

10/03/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0208
## Detailed Single Year Tables

- Individual Provisions
- Cost-of-Living Adjustment

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						A3: Starting December 2024, compute the COLA using a chained version of the consumer price index for wage and salary workers (CPI-W). We estimate this new computation will reduce the annual COLA by about 0.3 percentage point, on average.**

### Financial Estimates for the OASDI Trust Fund Program

### Summarized Estimates
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF GUARANTY BANCSHARES, INC. PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Arthur B. Scharlach, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of Guaranty Bancshares, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), that:

| | 1. | the Report   fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the   Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and             
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                    
| | 2. | the   information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material   respects, the Companys financial condition and results of operations.

|By:                       | /s/  ARTHUR B.   SCHARLACH, JR.                                              | 
|------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|                          |                                                                              | 
|                          | Arthur B.   Scharlach, Jr.   Chairman of the Board & Chief Executive Officer | 
|                          |                                                                              | 
|Dated:  November 10, 2004 |
Exhibit 23.1 -







Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



The Board of Directors
SBS Technologies, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following
registration statements of SBS Technologies, Inc. of our reports dated September
2, 2005, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of SBS Technologies,
Inc. and subsidiaries as of June 30, 2005, and 2004, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders' equity and
comprehensive income, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended June 30, 2005, management's assessment of the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting as of June 30, 2005 and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of June 30, 2005,
which reports appear in the June 30, 2005 annual report on Form 10-K of SBS
Technologies, Inc..



|Form | RegistrationStatement No. | Description                                                                                                                    
|---- | ------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|S-8  | 333-23053                 | SBS Technologies, Inc. 1997 Employee
Incentive Stock Option Plan                                                               
|S-8  | 033-98558                 | SBS Technologies, Inc. 1993 Director And Officer Stock Option
Plan; and SBS Technologies, Inc. 1996 Incentive Stock Option Plan
|S-8  | 333-68945                 | SBS Technologies, Inc. 1998 Long-Term Equity Incentive
Plan                                                                    
|S-8  | 333-69260                 | SBS Technologies, Inc. 2000 Long-Term Equity Incentive
Plan                                                                    
|S-3  | 333-111239                | SBS Technologies, Inc. Common Stock                                                                                            







Albuquerque, New Mexico
September 9, 2005
Skip to main content

# Social Security

Search
Menu
Español
Sign in

## Taxation of Social Security benefits

Office of the Chief Actuary 

Components of income and cost

Trust fund data

Under legislation enacted in 1983, the Social Security Trust Funds receive      income based on Federal income taxation of benefits.  The funds receive     taxes on up to 50 percent of benefits from single taxpayers with incomes over     $25,000 and from taxpayers filing jointly with incomes over $32,000. 

     Legislation enacted in 1993 extended taxation of benefits.  The legislation     increased the limitation on the amount of benefits subject to taxation      from 50 percent to 85 percent for single taxpayers with incomes over $34,000     and for taxpayers filing jointly with incomes over $44,000.   All      *additional* tax income resulting from the 1993 legislation is deposited     in Medicare's Hospital Insurance Trust Fund.

Footer menu
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 249 (Thursday, December 28, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 67157]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31417]



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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

RTCA, Inc. Special Committee 184; Minimum Performance and 
Installation Standards for Runway Guard Lights

    Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., Appendix 2), Notice is hereby given for a 
Special Committee 184 meeting to be held January 17, 1996, starting at 
9:30 a.m. The meeting will be held at RTCA, 1140 Connecticut Avenue, 
NW., Suite 1020, Washington, DC, 20036.

    The agenda will be as follows: (1) Administrative Announcements; 
(2) Chairman's Introductory Remarks; (3) Review and Approval of Meeting 
Agenda; (4) Review and Approval of Minutes of the Previous Meeting; (5) 
Review Work Assignments from the Previous Meeting; (6) Compile Material 
into Full Working Draft Document; (7) Other Business; (9) Date and 
Place of Next Meeting.
    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space 
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public 
may present oral statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to present 
statements or obtain information should contact the RTCA Secretariat, 
1140 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 1020, Washington, D.C. 20036; 
(202) 833-9339 (phone) or (202) 833-9434 (fax). Members of the public 
may present a written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 22, 1995.

Janice L. Peters,
Designated Official.
[FR Doc. 95-31417 Filed 12-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-13-M
1The Honorable Charles R. Wolle, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 00-3437

___________

George Frye, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Southern District of Iowa.

Comair, Inc., *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: April 24, 2001

 Filed: April 27, 2001

___________

Before BOWMAN, BEAM, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

George Frye appeals from the district court’s1 adverse grant of summary

judgment in his Age Discrimination in Employment Act complaint. Upon de novo

review of the summary judgment record, and viewing the evidence in the light most

favorable to Frye, we conclude summary judgment was proper because Frye failed to

submit sufficient evidence that Comair’s stated reasons for his termination were a
-2-

pretext for age discrimination. See Dammen v. UniMed Med. Ctr., 236 F.3d 978, 980

(8th Cir. 2001) (standard of review; burden-shifting analysis).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER  OF GUARANTY BANCSHARES, INC. PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Arthur B. Scharlach, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of Guaranty Bancshares, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and in connection with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), that:

| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of   Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,   and             
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |    |                                                                                                                                                    
| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly   presents, in all material respects, the Companys financial condition and   results of operations.

|By:                    | /s/  ARTHUR B. SCHARLACH, JR.                   | 
|---------------------- | ----------------------------------------------- | 
|                       |                                                 | 
|                       | Arthur B. Scharlach, Jr.                        | 
|                       | Chairman of the Board & Chief Executive Officer | 
|                       |                                                 | 
|Dated: August 11, 2005 |
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3305 

To repeal the amendment made to the Superfund excise taxes by the 

Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 2, 2021 

Mr. CRUZ (for himself, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. TOOMEY, Mr. LEE, 

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

and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To repeal the amendment made to the Superfund excise 

taxes by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. 

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 ‘‘Chemical Tax Repeal 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF CERTAIN SUPERFUND EXCISE TAX 

7 MODIFICATIONS. 

8 The amendments made by section 80201 of the Infra9 structure Investment and Jobs Act are repealed. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 20, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00235

- CR

N athan Manuel CANALES, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 38th Judicial District Court, Medina County, Texas

Trial Court No. 18

- 07

- 12935

- CR Honorable H. Paul Canales, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

T he clerk’s record has been filed, but does not contain a copy of the trial court’s certification of the defendant’s right of appeal as required by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2)(d), 34.5(a)(12), App’x D. We order the trial court clerk to file a supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s certification of the defendant’s right of appeal by May 30, 2019

.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 20th day of May, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
* 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 5TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 25, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-41830 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ANGEL ARTURO AMAYA-MELGOZA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:05-CR-595-ALL

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Angel Arturo Amaya-Melgoza (Amaya) appeals his guilty-plea conviction of, and sentence for, violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 by being found in the United States without permission after deportation. He argues, in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), that the 37-month term of imprisonment imposed in his case exceeds the statutory maximum sentence allowed for the § 1326(a) offense charged in his indictment. He challenges the constitutionality of § 1326(b)’s treatment of prior felonyNo. 05-41830 -2- and aggravated felony convictions as sentencing factors rather than elements of the offense that must be found by a jury. Amaya’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although he contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi , we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Amaya properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of Almendarez-Torres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.
AFFIRMED.
#### Annie Fesselmayer, Respondent, v. The Third Avenue Railway Company, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed.

Opinion by

Brady, J.
#### L. H. FOCHTMAN v. WALTER GREER.

(Filed 7 December, 1927.)

1. Limitation of Actions — Pleadings—Courts—Justices of the Peace — Appeal — Trial de Novo — Discretion.

An appeal from a court of a justice of the peace is tried ate *novo*in the Superior Court, C. S., 661, and when the account sued on is admitted in the former court, it is discretionary with the trial judge to permit the plea of the statute of limitations which is necessary to defendant’s right to set it up.

2. Actions — Interveners—Burden of Proof.

The burden of proof is upon the intervener in an action.

Appeal by defendant from *Sinclair, J.,*and a jury, at May Special Term, 1927, of Ashe.

No error.

*W. B. Austin for plaintiff.*

*W. B. Bauguess for defendant.*

Pee Curiam:.

Plaintiff brought an action against defendant on a promissory note, before a justice of the peace. A warrant of attachment was sued out at the time and service was had by publication. *We*are bound by the record. It discloses that when the cause came on for trial before the justice of the peace defendant, through his attorney, entered a special appearance, *admitted the correctness of the account,*and moved to vacate the attachment on the ground that defendant was a resident of this State. This motion was overruled and judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff, from which the defendant appealed to the Superior Court. Subsequent thereto Emma Greer and Fay Graham intervened, alleging ownership to certain personal property at*675tached in tbe action. Tbis issue was tried in tbe Superior Court. Tbe jury decided against tbe interveners. Tbe attorney wbo appeared in tbe justice of tbe peace’s court for defendant represented tbe inter-veners in tbe Superior Court.

Tbe burden of tbe issue tó be answered by tbe jury was upon tbe interveners. *Sugg v. Engine Co.,*193 N. C., p. 814.

From tbe record we find tbat in tbe justice of tbe peace’s court defendant “admitted tbe correctness of tbe account.” In tbe Superior Court defendant offered to plead tbe statute of limitation, tbrougb tbe same attorney wbo represented tbe interveners and wbo bad entered a special appearance for defendant in tbe justice of tbe peace’s court and moved to vacate tbe attachment on tbe ground tbat defendant was a resident, but admitted tbe correctness of tbe account. Tbe court refused to allow tbis to be done. On an appeal to tbe Superior Court tbe trial is *de novo,*“a new trial of tbe whole matter.” C. S., 661. Tbe defense of tbe statute of limitation, to be available, must be pleaded. 8 Eneye. Dig., N. C. Eeports, p. 887, see. 134, and cases cited.

Defendant did not plead tbe statute of limitation, but admitted in tbe justice of tbe peace’s court tbe correctness of tbe debt. Tbe leave to file answer in tbe Superior Court and plead tbe statute of limitations, under tbe facts and circumstances of tbis case, was in tbe discretion of tbe court below. Defendant cannot “blow hot and cold in tbe same breath.”

Tbe cases of *Woodard v. Milling Co.,*142 N. C., p. 100, and *White v. Peanut Co.,*165 N. C., p. 132, are not in conflict with tbe position here taken. *We*find

No error.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

United States Space Command

USSPACECOM

                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  About    -  Mission         
  -  Warfighting Units         
  -  Frequently Asked Questions         
  -  Strategic Vision         
  -  Emblem 
-  Leaders    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Command Senior Enlisted Leader         
  -  Chief of Staff 
-  Support    -  Inspector General         
  -  FOIA      -  Making a FOIA Request         
    -  Reading Room 
  -  Equal Opportunity Coordinator         
  -  Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Victim Advocate         
  -  Command Chaplain         
  -  Commandant         
  -  Resilience Program 
-  Newsroom    -  News      -  FY2025 Testimony 
  -  Photos and Videos         
  -  Speeches         
  -  Publications 
-  Contact		 
-  Partnerships and Outreach    -  Academic Engagement Enterprise      -  AEE Articles of Interest         
    -  AEE Members 
  -  Careers      -  Civilians         
    -  Internships 
  -  Industry Engagement Portal 
-  Newcomers    -  Newcomer Information         
  -  Checking In 

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# USSPACECOM, Brazilian Air Force Sign Liaison Officer Agreement

U.S. Space Command

                COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo.  –              **USSPACECOM, Brazilian Air Force Sign Liaison Officer Agreement****PETERSON SPACE FORCE BASE, Colo.**USSPACECOM.pa.workflow@us.af.mil
**- 30 -**

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT