alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
,.,.-. ~.:*:. < - _.. _ 

,. 

OFFIkE OF THE ATCORNE,:. :GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Honorcrble George H. :;heppard 

Comptroller of Publfa ncaounte 

&~stln, Texao 

Deer slrr 

ution and talcot in lnstall1940, you request 

alai5 ror taxes 

tractor (an atder krtiales 

thorltod to 

7345b, Vernon'.3 Civil StAtutcs, lrrr~,31y Gor5rns l!m proooCurz ta bo folio-m8 1~ tax toreclo~~~ra proc~~~cdlc~s. .<. 8 

rind nothing in any of such statutes wnlch &us::'e:;ts that 

e dollnquont tclx attorney ia OlOth8d with the power to 

bind the State to agreecents to so post.pone col~tation. 

iYe do not believe that the power to nentoroe or assist in 
Honorable George II. Shegpeird, Page e 

the enroroezfmt of the oolleatioa* of suoh delinquent taxiit;;;lb aarry with it any such wwer by necessary lmpllAad, the erexise thereof would in a sense disturb 

the cok3=plated operatloa of Artloles 7336 antl 7345b. 

In our oplnloa the aontraoting attorney may not 

bind the State to any auob agreements. 

Yours very truly 

ATTOmlXY QENERAL OF TEXAS 

C18Ul R, L8Wi.9 

Aselstant 

. .
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 2853 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 15, 2010 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To require the purchase of domestically made flags of the 

United States of America for use by the Federal Government. 

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


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 2853 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘All-American Flag 

3 Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. REQUIREMENT FOR PURCHASE OF DOMESTICALLY 

5 MADE UNITED STATES FLAGS FOR USE BY 

6 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 

7 Only such flags of the United States of America, re8 gardless of size, that are 100 percent manufactured in the 

9 United States, from articles, materials, or supplies 100 

10 percent of which are grown, produced, or manufactured 

11 in the United States, may be acquired for use by the Fed12 eral Government. 

13 SEC. 3. REQUIREMENT TO USE WORKERS AUTHORIZED TO 

14 WORK IN THE UNITED STATES. 

15 In carrying out section 2, the Federal Government 

16 may purchase flags only from a manufacturer that cer17 tifies that— 

18 (1) the manufacturer does not employ aliens 

19 who are not authorized to be employed in the United 

20 States; and 

21 (2) the manufacturer participates in the E22 Verify Program under section 401 of the Illegal Im23 migration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act 

24 of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1324a note). 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 2853 RFS

1 SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

2 Section 2 shall apply to purchases of flags made on 

3 or after 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 

4 Act. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 30 

(legislative day September 29), 2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 40143

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff-Respondent

,

v.

LARRY WARD CRAGUN

,

Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 513

Filed: May 23, 2013

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

T HIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,

Kootenai County. Hon. Benjamin R. Sim pson , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and concurrent sentences of a unified term of life, with thirty years determinate, for murder of the first degree; a determinate term of fifteen years for attempted murder ; and determinate terms of fifteen years for two counts of aggravated battery, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon . Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for resp ondent.

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Larry Ward Cragun pled guilty to murder of the first degree , Idaho Code § 18

- 4001;

attempted murder, I.C. § 18

- 4001; and two counts of aggravated battery , I.C. § 18

- 907 . The

district cour t sentenced Cragun to a unified term of life, with thirty years determinate, for the

murder of the first degree conviction and a determinate term of fifteen years for e ach of the

remaining convictions

. The district court also ordered the sentences to run concurrent with each

other. Cragun appeals, contending his sentences are excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court ’ s discretion. Both our standard of revi ew and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and2 need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 1 14, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011,

1014

- 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387 , 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Cragun’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.
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.                  

###### Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for 10367—Summit Bank, Burlington, Washington (Receiver) has been authorized to take all actions necessary to terminate the Receivership Estate of Summit Bank (Receivership Estate); the Receiver has made all dividend distributions required by law.

The Receiver has further irrevocably authorized and appointed FDIC-Corporate as its attorney-in-fact to execute and file any and all documents that may be required to be executed by the Receiver which FDIC-Corporate, in its sole discretion, deems necessary; including but not limited to releases, discharges, satisfactions, endorsements, assignments and deeds.

Effective October 1, 2017, the Receivership Estate has been terminated, the Receiver discharged, and the Receivership Estate has ceased to exist as a legal entity.

Dated: October 2, 2017. 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

Robert E. Feldman,

Executive Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2017-21505 Filed 10-5-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6714-01-P
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2774 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to make permanent the extension 

of the duration of Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance coverage for 

totally disabled veterans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 9, 2009 

Mrs. HALVORSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to make permanent 

the extension of the duration of Servicemembers’ Group 

Life Insurance coverage for totally disabled veterans. 

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 ‘‘Families of Veterans 

5 Financial Security Act’’. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HR 2774 IH

1 SEC. 2. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF DURATION OF 

2 SERVICEMEMBERS’ GROUP LIFE INSURANCE 

3 COVERAGE FOR TOTALLY DISABLED VET4 ERANS. 

5 (a) EXTENSION.—Section 1968(a) of title 38, United 

6 States Code, is amended— 

7 (1) in paragraph (1)(A), by striking clause (ii) 

8 and inserting the following new clause (ii): 

9 ‘‘(ii) The date that is two years after 

10 the date of separation or release from such 

11 active duty or active duty for training.’’. 

12 (2) in paragraph (4), by striking subparagraph 

13 (B) and inserting the following new subparagraph 

14 (B): 

15 ‘‘(B) The date that is two years after the 

16 date of separation or release from such assign17 ment.’’. 

18 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

19 subsection (a) shall apply with respect to a person who 

20 is separated or released on or after June 15, 2005. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET - UNAUDITED AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
INCOME AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          27,770
<SECURITIES>                                    30,017
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,295
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (844)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                66,145
<PP&E>                                           9,407
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (3,280)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  84,569
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,917
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             3
<OTHER-SE>                                      69,398
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    84,569
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                56,774
<CGS>                                            5,565
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   43,160
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 15,426
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,504
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,922
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.24
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Anthony Washington, Appellant.

[666 NYS2d 866]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s application to withdraw granted *(see, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J.—Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 2nd Degree.) Present— Green, J. P., Hayes, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, JJ.
#### Wilson *vs.*Dunnegan.

1. The only issue in this case was whether the deed relied on by the • plaintiff in ejectment was given as a conveyance, or only as a security for money loaned; and there was sufficient evidence to authorize the finding of the jury on that issue.

2. The charge was a full, fair and impartial exposition of the law applicable to the issues made by the parties

Judgment affirmed.

September 9, 1884.

BLANDLORD, Justice.
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-69721, 333-64519 and 333-60180) and Form S-8
(Nos. 33-90702, 33-90726, 33-90732, 333-3408, 333-25217, 333-41067,
333-45063, 333-74141, 333-49822 and 333-33894) of PRI Automation, Inc. of our
report dated November 19, 2001 relating to the financial statements and
financial statement schedule, which appears in this Form 10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
December 7, 2001
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 21-0254

_________________

STATE OF MONTANA,

 Plaintiff and Appellee,

 v.

ANDREW ORLANDO BIGLEGGINS,

 Defendant and Appellant.

O R D E R

_________________

Appellant Andrew Orlando Bigleggins, via counsel, was granted an extension of 

time to file and serve his opening brief on or before November 12, 2021. The opening brief 

is now overdue.

THEREFORE,

IT IS ORDERED that Appellant shall prepare, file, and serve the opening brief on 

appeal no later than December 23, 2021. Failure to file the brief within that time will result 

in dismissal of this appeal with prejudice and without further notice. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to all counsel of record. 

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 23 2021

11/23/2021

Case Number: DA 21-0254
#### Curtis HARDY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Douglas BYRD, Individually and in his Official Capacity as a Correctional Officer, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 10-40193

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

March 28, 2011.

*357Curtis J. Hardy, Memphis, TN, pro se.

Andrea Lynn Parker, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Beaumont, TX, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Curtis Hardy, federal prisoner # 01102-043, appeals the summary judgment dismissing his civil rights claim. He contends that defendant Douglas Byrd displayed deliberate indifference to his diabetes by failing to promptly escort Hardy to his housing unit so he could rest. According to Hardy, because of the delay, he collapsed on the way to the unit and was given emergency treatment for high blood sugar, high blood pressure, and weakness in his legs.

We review the grant of summary judgment *de novo,*and we affirm “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); *Cuadra v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist.,*626 F.3d 808, 812 (5th Cir.2010).

Summary judgment was proper because, even when all of Hardy’s allegations and summary judgment evidence were accepted as true, he still failed to show a disputed issue of material fact as to whether the delay in treatment amounted to deliberate indifference to a serious medical need. *See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,*477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Hardy’s summary judgment evidence did not show that Byrd was aware of a serious need for medical attention and ignored that need, or that any delay in medical treatment rose to the level of deliberate indifference or resulted in substantial harm. *See Easter v. Powell,*467 F.3d 459, 463 (5th Cir.2006).

Hardy also contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motions for discovery. The district court rendered discovery unnecessary by accepting Hardy’s version of the events. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying discovery.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
#### Bonnie Lux, Respondent, v Andrzej Jakson et al., Appellants.

[859 NYS2d 813]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County *1254(Frank A. Sedita, Jr., J.), entered October 26, 2007 in a personal injury action. The order denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted and the complaint is dismissed.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries she allegedly sustained when the motor vehicle that she was operating was struck by a vehicle operated by defendant Darlene M. Jakson. Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Supreme Court erred in denying the motion. Defendants met their initial burden by submitting, inter alia, an affirmed report of a physician who examined plaintiff on behalf of defendants and concluded that there was no objective evidence that plaintiff sustained a serious injury in her cervical spine as a result of the accident but, rather, plaintiff suffered from a preexisting degenerative condition in her cervical spine and had previously injured her cervical spine. “[W]ith persuasive evidence that plaintiff’s alleged pain and injuries were related to a preexisting condition, plaintiff had the burden to come forward with evidence addressing defendant[s’] claimed lack of causation” *(Carrasco v Mendez,*4 NY3d 566, 580 [2005]), and plaintiff failed to meet that burden. The affidavit of plaintiffs treating chiropractor submitted in opposition to the motion is insufficient to raise an issue of fact whether plaintiffs condition was caused by the accident inasmuch as the chiropractor did not address degenerative changes in plaintiffs cervical spine or the prior injury thereto (see *Coston v McGray,*49 AD3d 934, 935-936 [2008]; *Smith v Cherubini,*44 AD3d 520 [2007]; *Agard v Bryant,*24 AD3d 182 [2005]). Present—Hurlbutt, J.P, Martoche, Lunn, Green and Gorski, JJ.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3290 

To provide for the issuance of a veterans health care stamp. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 1, 2011 

Mr. BURGESS (for himself, Mr. HENSARLING, Ms. BORDALLO, Mr. BRADY of 

Pennsylvania, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. FORBES, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. JONES, 

Mr. KING of New York, and Mr. HULTGREN) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform, and in addition to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To provide for the issuance of a veterans health care stamp. 

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 ‘‘Veterans Health Care 

5 Stamp Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. VETERANS HEALTH CARE STAMP. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—In order to afford a convenient 

8 way for members of the public to contribute to funding 

9 for the medical care and treatment of veterans, the United 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3290 IH

1 States Postal Service shall provide for the issuance and 

2 sale of a special postage stamp, hereinafter referred to as 

3 the ‘‘veterans health care stamp’’, in accordance with sub4 sections (b) and (c). 

5 (b) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The issuance and sale 

6 of the veterans health care stamp shall be governed by 

7 section 416 of title 39, United States Code, except that— 

8 (1) all amounts becoming available from the 

9 sale of such stamp shall be transferred to the De10 partment of Veterans Affairs in accordance with sec11 tion 416(d) of such title; and 

12 (2) such stamp shall not be subject to any nu13 merical limitation under section 416(e)(1)(C) of 

14 such title. 

15 (c) ANNUAL REISSUANCE.—The veterans health care 

16 stamp shall bear such illustration, depiction, or other 

17 image or design as the Postal Service shall determine in 

18 time to allow for its reissuance to coincide with Veterans 

19 Day of each year. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 196 (Thursday, October 12, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47582-47583]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21969]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice (17-074)]


Applied Sciences Advisory Committee; Meeting

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) 
announces a meeting of the Applied Sciences Advisory Committee (ASAC). 
This Committee functions in an advisory capacity to the Director, Earth 
Science Division, in the NASA Science Mission Directorate. The meeting 
will be held for the purpose of soliciting, from the applied sciences 
community and other persons, scientific and

[[Page 47583]]

technical information relevant to program planning.

DATES: Monday, October 30, 2017, 1:15 p.m. to 3:00 p.m., Eastern 
Daylight Time (EDT).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. KarShelia Henderson, Science 
Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 
358-2355, or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2942414c474d4c5b5a46476947485a48074e465f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4922212c272d2c3b3a26270927283a28672e263f">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This meeting will be open to the public 
telephonically and by WebEx. You must use a touch-tone phone to 
participate in this meeting. Any interested person may dial the USA 
toll free conference call number (888) 677-3055, passcode 4301862, 
followed by the # sign, to participate in this meeting by telephone. 
The WebEx link is https://nasa.webex.com/; the meeting number is 999 
796 469 and the password is y7hj4Xj* .
    The agenda for the meeting will be focused on the following topic:
    <bullet> Continuity Study
    It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to 
accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants.

Patricia D. Rausch,
Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2017-21969 Filed 10-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7510-13-P


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