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

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1786 

To encourage the placement of children in foster care with siblings. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 10, 2013 

Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. KAINE) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To encourage the placement of children in foster care with 

siblings. 

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 ‘‘Sibling Connections 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ENCOURAGING THE PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN IN 

7 FOSTER CARE WITH SIBLINGS. 

8 (a) STATE PLAN AMENDMENT.— 

9 (1) NOTIFICATION OF PARENTS OF SIBLINGS.— 

10 Section 471(a)(29) of the Social Security Act (42 

11 U.S.C. 671(a)(29)) is amended by striking ‘‘all adult 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1786 IS

1 grandparents’’ and inserting ‘‘the following relatives: 

2 all adult grandparents, all parents of a sibling of the 

3 child, where such parent has legal custody of such 

4 sibling,’’. 

5 (2) SIBLING DEFINED.—Section 475 of the So6 cial Security Act (42 U.S.C. 675) is amended by 

7 adding at the end the following: 

8 ‘‘(9) The term ‘sibling’ means an individual 

9 who satisfies at least one of the following conditions 

10 with respect to a child: 

11 ‘‘(A) The individual is considered by State 

12 law to be a sibling of the child. 

13 ‘‘(B) The individual would have been con14 sidered a sibling of the child under State law 

15 but for a termination or other disruption of pa16 rental rights, such as the death of a parent.’’. 

17 (b) EFFECTIVE DATES.— 

18 (1) IN GENERAL.—The amendments made by 

19 this section shall take effect on the date of enact20 ment of this Act. 

21 (2) DELAY PERMITTED IF STATE LEGISLATION

22 REQUIRED.—In the case of a State plan approved 

23 under part E of title IV of the Social Security Act 

24 which the Secretary of Health and Human Services 

25 determines requires State legislation (other than legVerDate Mar 15 2010 00:51 Dec 11, 2013 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1786.IS S1786

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 1786 IS

1 islation appropriating funds) in order for the plan to 

2 meet the additional requirements imposed by this 

3 Act, the State plan shall not be regarded as failing 

4 to comply with the requirements of such part solely 

5 on the basis of the failure of the plan to meet such 

6 additional requirements before the 1st day of the 1st 

7 calendar quarter beginning after the close of the 1st 

8 regular session of the State legislature that ends 

9 after the 1-year period beginning with the date of 

10 enactment of this Act. For purposes of the preceding 

11 sentence, in the case of a State that has a 2-year 

12 legislative session, each year of the session is deemed 

13 to be a separate regular session of the State legisla14 ture. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Table 6.  Homeownership Rates by Area:  First Quarter 2003 and 2002




                                     First      First     Standard    Standard
Area                                quarter    quarter    error on    error on
                                     2003       2002r    2003 rate  difference

United States.....................      68.0       67.8        0.2         0.2

  Inside MAs......................      66.2       66.0        0.2         0.2
   In central cities..............      51.9       51.4        0.3         0.4
   Not in central cities (suburbs)      74.7       74.6        0.2         0.3
  Outside MAs.....................      75.6       75.5        0.3         0.4

 Northeast........................      64.2       63.8        0.4         0.5
 Midwest..........................      72.9       73.2        0.3         0.4
 South............................      69.9       69.8        0.2         0.3
 West.............................      62.8       62.1        0.3         0.5
       rRevised
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 5, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-10467
MD RICHARD FRANKLIN Plaintiff - Appellant
v. BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE CORPORATION; ET AL Defendants BURLINGTON NORTHERN & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY Defendant - Appellee Consolidated with

No. 05-10602

MD RICHARD FRANKLIN Plaintiff - Appellee
v. BURLINGTON NORTHERN SANTA FE CORPORATION; ET AL Defendants BURLINGTON NORTHERN & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY Defendant - Appellant

-------------------- Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth

USDC No. 4:03-CV-228-BE

-------------------- Before KING, BARKSDALE and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.No. -2-

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. PER CURIAM: * AFFIRMED. See 5 th Cir. R. 47.6.
#### Joseph Nathaniel SIMMONS, s/k/a Willie Johnson, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 42816.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 13, 1973.

Robert E. Jagger, Public Defender, and William F. Casler, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and George R. Georgieff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted of rape without recommendation of mercy in the Circuit Court, in and for Pinellas County, Florida, and sentenced to death. Subsequently, under authority of Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 92 S.Ct. 2726, 33 L.Ed.2d 346 (1972), the Supreme Court of Florida in In re Baker, 267 So.2d 331 (Fla.1972), reduced appellant’s sentence from death to life imprisonment and allowed appellant the right to file a motion with the trial court for further consideration or mitigation of the sentence.

Appellant’s conviction for rape arose from a series of alleged criminal transactions which also resulted in convictions of armed robbery and aggravated assault with intent to commit murder, but these convictions are not before this Court. We have carefully considered the record and briefs, and have listened carefully to oral argument in the cause, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, the conviction, as previously modified by reduction of sentence, is affirmed.

It is so ordered.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
EX-10.23





 Exhibit 10.23 

CONFIDENTIAL 
 Primavera
Capital Acquisition LLC 
 41/F Gloucester Tower, 15 Queen’s Road Central, Hong Kong 

September 29, 2022 
 Ladies and Gentlemen: 

Reference is made to certain Administrative Services Agreement, dated January 21, 2021, by and between Primavera Capital Acquisition Corporation and
Primavera Capital Acquisition LLC (as may be amended, restated, supplemented or modified from time to time, the “Administrative Services Agreement”). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to
them in the Administrative Services Agreement. 
 Pursuant to the fourth paragraph of the Administrative Services Agreement, Primavera Capital Acquisition
LLC hereby irrevocably waives its right to receive any amount from Primavera Capital Acquisition Corporation under the last sentence of the first paragraph of the Administrative Services Agreement, to the extent such amount has not already been
received by Primavera Capital Acquisition LLC as of the date hereof. 
 The last four paragraphs of the Administrative Services Agreement are incorporated
herein by reference mutatis mutandis; provided that, in each case, references to “this agreement” in such paragraphs shall mean this letter. 

[Signature Pages Follow] 












 
			
	Very truly yours,
	
	Primavera Capital Acquisition LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Tong Chen

	Name:	 	Tong Chen
	Title:	 	Authorized Signatory


 [Signature Page to Waiver Letter] 












 
			
	AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED BY:
	
	Primavera Capital Acquisition Corporation
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Tong Chen

	Name:	 	Tong Chen
	Title:	 	Chief Executive Officer


 [Signature Page to Waiver Letter]
#### The Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. *v.*Long, Auditor, et al.

*Taxation*— Insurance *companies*— Debts *deductible from*assets— *Unearned premiums or insurance reserve not deductible.*

(No. 18715

Decided December 9, 1924.)

Error to the Court of Appeals of Butler county.

*Messrs. V\orys, Setter, Seymour &*Pease, and *Messrs. Pitt on & B'egler,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. G. G. Grabbe,*attorney general, and *Mr. G. S. Younger,*for defendants in error.

By the Court.

The plaintiff in error, the Ohio Casualty Company, is a corporation organized under the laws of Ohio and located at Hamilton in this state, and is authorized to write accident, health, automobile, and other insurance, but not life insurance. It collects cash premiums paid in advance at rates prescribed by the company for the term of insurance stated in the policy.

In making its tax returns to the auditor of Butler county it. sought to deduct from its assets, as a debt, so-called “reinsurance reserve or unearned premium liability.” This the county auditor refused to permit, and his action was approved by the county board of revision, and upon appeal to the tax commission of Ohio that commission likewise refused to deduct the unearned premium liability as a debt, and certified such action to the county auditor. Whereupon the company instituted in the court of common pleas of Butler county a proceeding pursuant to the provisions of *425Section 5611-2, General Code, to procure a reversal of that order. The court of common pleas held that the unearned premium liability was not a debt, sustained the finding and order of the tax commission, and dismissed the petition in error, which judgment, upon proceeding in error to the Court of Appeals, was affirmed by that court.

As viewed by a majority of the court the precise question here presented was decided by this court in the case of *Insurance Co.*v. *Cappellar,*38 Ohio St., 560, wherein it was held that “the item returned as ‘reinsurance’ was not ‘a legal *boma fide*debt’ within the meaning of Section 2730, Revised Statutes.” (Section 5327, General Code.)

No legislation having been subsequently enacted authorizing the deduction of such reinsurance of domestic insurance companies as a debt for the purposes of taxation, this case is governed by the decision of this court in *Insurance Co.*v. *Cappellar, supra,*and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed upon that authority.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Robinson, Jones, Matthias, Day, and Allen, JJ., concur.

Conn, J., dissents.
#### William A. DAVIS, Appellant, v. HARDWARE DEALERS MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign corporation licensed to do business in the State of Florida, Appellee.

No. 479.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Oct. 25, 1967.

Robert D. Hurth of Law Offices of Robert S. Lyons, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Norman C. Roettger, Jr., of Fleming, O’Bryan & Fleming, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of DeCespedes v. Prudence Mutual Casualty Company, Fla.App.1966, 193 So.2d 244 (aff’d, Florida Supreme Court, 202 So.2d 561, opinion filed September 20, 1967).

WALDEN, C. J., CROSS, J., and MELVIN, WOODROW M., Associate Judge, concur.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1727 

To require a Comptroller General of the United States report assessing 

a study of the Army on the Combat vehicle industrial base. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 19, 2013 

Mr. TOOMEY (for himself and Mr. CASEY) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To require a Comptroller General of the United States report 

assessing a study of the Army on the Combat vehicle 

industrial base. 

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 ‘‘Army Combat Vehicle 

5 Industrial Base Study Validation Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES 

7 REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF ARMY STUDY 

8 ON THE COMBAT VEHICLE INDUSTRIAL BASE. 

9 (a) REPORT REQUIRED.—The Comptroller General 

10 of the United States shall submit to the congressional deVerDate Mar 15 2010 20:43 Nov 25, 2013 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S1727.IS S1727

sroberts on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1727 IS

1 fense committees a report setting forth an assessment by 

2 the Comptroller General of the study of the Army on the 

3 Bradley Fighting Vehicle industrial base submitted to 

4 Congress pursuant to the Conference Report to Accom5 pany H.R. 4310 (112th Congress), the National Defense 

6 Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 (House Report 

7 112–705). 

8 (b) ELEMENTS.—The report required by subsection 

9 (a) shall— 

10 (1) address each of the combat vehicles included 

11 in the study of the Army; 

12 (2) include an assessment of the reasonableness 

13 of the study’s methods including, but not limited to 

14 the sufficiency, validity, and reliability of the data 

15 used to conduct the study; and 

16 (3) include findings and recommendations on 

17 the combat vehicle industrial base, but should not 

18 replicate the study of the Army. 

Æ 


sroberts on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           3,438
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      823
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     12,144
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,261
<PP&E>                                          53,275
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,642
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 111,774
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,088
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            65
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,120
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   111,774
<SALES>                                         63,830
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                67,166
<CGS>                                           13,698
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   47,111
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,709
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,327
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,862
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,465
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,465
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.52
        

</TABLE>
#### Carl O. BRANDES, Jr., Appellant, v. James Milton COMPTON, Stanley Breese, Jr., Andree Wohlwend, Cherokee Insurance Company, Allstate Insurance Company, Appellees.

No. 71-169.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 6, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 2, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
NO. 07-03-0256-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TE XAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A DECEMBER 15, 2004

______________________________ IN THE INTEREST OF M.M. AND T.M., CHILDREN

_________________________________ FROM THE 242ND DISTRICT COURT OF HA LE COUNTY; NO. B3197 9-0202; H ONORABLE ROBERT W. KINKAI D, JR., JU DGE

_______________________________ Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ. MEMORAND UM OPINION CindyMarriott a ppeals f rom a judgment terminating her parental rights in her children M.M. and T .M. We affi rm. Following a non-jury trial, appellant Cindy Marriott’s parental rights in her children M.M. and T.M. wereterminated. Among other matters, the record contains a great deal of evidence co ncerning il legal activity by Marriott which resulted in her inca rceration. Her activities included illegal dr ug use a round the children for many years, extended associations with persons who also used illegal drugs in Marriott’s home while the children-2-

were p resent, and her refusal to modify her behavior despite numerous attempts to help her do so

by vario us agenc ies, enti ties and persons. Marriott gave notice of appeal. The trial cou rt appoi nted counsel for her appeal. See T EX . F AM . C ODE A NN . § 263.40 5(e) (Vern on 2002)
. Appointed counsel for appellant has filed a Motion to Withdraw and a Brief in support thereof. In support of the motion to withdraw, counsel has certifie d that, in complia nce with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744-745, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed .2d 493 (1967), the record has been diligently reviewed and that in theopinion of couns el, the re cord refl ects no rev ersible err or or grounds upon which a non-frivolous appea l can arguably be predicated. Counsel thus concludes that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has attached exhibits showing that a co py of the Andersbrief and Motion to Withdraw have been forwarded to appellant, and thatcounsel has appropriately advised appellant

of appellant’s right

to review the record and file a response to coun sel’s motion and brief. Appe lla nt has not filed a response to counsel’s motion and brief. The Texas Departmentof Protective and Regulatory Services has filed an extensive brief in w hich the Departmentconcurswith Marriott’s appointed counsel’s opinion that the appeal is frivolous. We have made an independent examination of the record to deter mine whe th er there are any a rguable grounds f or appea l. See Penson v. Ohio , 488 U. S. 75, 80 , 1 09 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (198 8); Stafford v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex.Crim.App. 1991). We have found no such grounds. We ag ree that the appeal is frivolous.-3-

Accordingly, counsel’s Mot ion to Withdraw is granted. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Phil Johnson Chief Justice
#### Jeff PARTIN, Jr., Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 44011.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 28, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 277 So.2d 847.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                    Supplemental Information (b)

PROXY                                                                      PROXY
                                COTTER & COMPANY

          THIS PROXY IS SOLICITED ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS

        The undersigned hereby appoints William M. Halterman; Richard L.
Schaefer; and John M. West, Jr., and each of them, as Proxies, with full power
of substitution, and hereby authorizes them, to represent and to vote, as
designated below, all shares of Class A Common Stock of Cotter & Company held
of record by the undersigned on February 16, 1996, at the Annual Meeting of
Stockholders to be held on Tuesday, April 2, 1996, at The Stouffer Renaissance
Hotel, 3801 Quebec Street, Denver, Colorado 80207, at 10:00 a.m., local time,
and at any adjournments thereof.

     A COPY OF THE COMPANY'S 10-K ANNUAL REPORT IS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST.

         PLEASE MARK, SIGN, DATE, AND RETURN THE PROXY BALLOT PROMPTLY
                          USING THE ENCLOSED ENVELOPE.

                 (Continued and to be signed on reverse side.)

                                COTTER & COMPANY
   PLEASE MARK VOTE IN OVAL IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER USING DARK INK ONLY. / /

THE BOARD RECOMMENDS A VOTE FOR ALL OF THE FOLLOWING PROPOSALS.

1. ELECTION OF DIRECTORS           FOR  WITHHOLD  FOR ALL  (Except Nominee(s)
   Nominees:  J.W. (Bill) Blagg,   / /    / /       / /    __________________
   Samuel D. Costa, Jr., Daniel
   A. Cotter, Leonard C. Farr,
   and Dennis A. Swanson, for a
   term of three years.

2. To vote for the election of    FOR   AGAINST   ABSTAIN
   John F. Lottes, III, to        / /    / /       / /
   serve for a term of one
   year to fill the unexpired
   term of Robert G. Waters,
   retired.

3. Proposal to approve the       FOR   AGAINST    ABSTAIN
   appointment of Ernst &        / /    / /        / /
   Young, independent
   public accountants, as
   auditors of the Company
   for the fiscal year 1996.

4. In their discretion, the     FOR   AGAINST    ABSTAIN
   Proxies are authorized       / /    / /        / /
   to vote upon such other
   business as may properly
   come before the meeting,
   or any adjournments
   thereof.

THIS PROXY WHEN PROPERLY EXECUTED WILL BE VOTED IN THE MANNER DIRECTED HEREIN 
BY THE UNDERSIGNED STOCKHOLDER. IF NO DIRECTION IS MADE, THIS PROXY WILL BE
VOTED FOR PROPOSALS 1, 2, 3 AND 4.

Dated: _________________, 1996

Signature(s) __________________________________

_______________________________________________
Please sign exactly as name appears on your Class A Common Stock certificate.
If a corporation, please sign in full corporate name by President or other
authorized officer. If a partnership, please sign in partnership name by
authorized person.
#### Dewey Lee BRIMER v. MID-CONTINENT STEEL CASTING et al.

No. 62444.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1978.

In re: Mid-Continent Steel Castings, etc., & Seaboard Fire & Marine Insurance Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit. Parish of Caddo.

Writ denied.