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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3463

To amend part E of title IV of the Social Security Act to facilitate the

placement of foster children in permanent kinship care arrangements.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 8, 1993

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

Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend part E of title IV of the Social Security Act

to facilitate the placement of foster children in permanent kinship care arrangements.

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

3 SECTION 1. PLACEMENT OF FOSTER CHILDREN IN PERMA4 NENT KINSHIP CARE ARRANGEMENTS.

5 (a) STATE OPTION TO DEEM KINSHIP PLACEMENT

6 AS ADOPTION.—Section 473(a) of the Social Security Act

7 (42 U.S.C. 673(a)) is amended by adding at the end the

8 following:

9 ‘‘(7) If a State places a child (who has been in foster

10 care under the supervision of the State) with a blood rel-
2

•HR 3463 IH

1 ative of the child or of a half-sibling of the child, and

2 transfers legal custody of the child to the relative, pursu3 ant to a written agreement, entered into between the State

4 and the relative, that contains provisions of the type de5 scribed in section 475(3), then, at the option of the State,

6 for purposes of this part—

7 ‘‘(A) the placement is deemed an adoption;

8 ‘‘(B) the initiation of the proceeding to so place

9 the child is deemed an adoption proceeding;

10 ‘‘(C) the relative is deemed the adoptive parent

11 of the child;

12 ‘‘(D) the agreement is deemed an adoption as13 sistance agreement;

14 ‘‘(E) the payments made under the agreement

15 are deemed to be adoption assistance payments; and

16 ‘‘(F) any reasonable and necessary court costs,

17 attorneys fees, and other expenses which are directly

18 related to the placement or the transfer of legal cus19 tody and are not in violation of State or Federal law

20 are deemed nonrecurring adoption expenses.’’.

21 (b) CONSIDERATION OF KINSHIP PLACEMENT OP22 TION AT DISPOSITIONAL HEARING.—Section 475(5)(C) of

23 such Act (42 U.S.C. 675(5)(C)) is amended by inserting

24 ‘‘should be placed with a relative of the child as provided
3

•HR 3463 IH

1 in section 473(a)(7),’’ before ‘‘should be placed for adop2 tion’’.

3 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

4 this section shall apply to payments under part E of title

5 IV of the Social Security Act for quarters beginning after

6 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
F 12.31.2013 Exhibit 10-K-1






Exhibit 10-K-1


Description of Amendment to 
Basic Life Insurance
and 
Accidental Death & Dismemberment Insurance
Effective January 1, 2014


Under the former policies, non-employee directors received $200,000 Basic Life Insurance (BLI) and $500,000 Accidental Death & Dismemberment Insurance (AD&D) and had the option to reduce their coverage levels to $50,000/$125,000.  On December 12, 2013, the Board expanded the current Board member certificate to include former employees/retirees of the Company who serve as members of the Board effective as of January 1, 2014.  Specifically the new certificate includes the following:
		
	•
	Non-employee directors continue to have the choice of $200,000 BLI / $500,000 AD&D or may reduce coverage to $50,000 / $125,000.


		
	•
	Directors who are retired employees of Ford have Company provided retiree coverage of $25,000 BLI and $25,000 AD&D until age 65.  Such directors are now also eligible for non-employee director coverage for BLI and AD&D.  These dual eligibility members are offered $200,000 BLI / $500,000 AD&D or reduced coverage of $25,000 BLI / $62,500 AD&D, in addition to their Ford retiree coverage.


		
	•
	Director coverage would cease upon separation from the Board, as is presently the case.




Benefit schedule and rates are not affected by this change.
#### Roger William ROLISON v. STATE.

No. 36908.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 1968.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 202 So.2d 791.
#### BAY ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORP., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. VOLPE PLASTERING, INC., a Florida corporation, et al., Appellees.

No. 73-546.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 12, 1973.

Rehearing Denied July 23, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 10.21

 

School Building Lease Amendment

of The Beijing British School

on 12 April 2010

 

Beijing New Talent Academy (hereinafter referred to as Party A)

Address: Tianzhu Development Zone, Shunyi District, Beijing, China

Zip code: 100300

Tel: [             ], Fax:[          ]

Representative: Lan Chun   Title: Principal

 

Nord Anglia Education Ltd (hereinafter referred to as Party B)

	
Address:
    	
Nord   House,
    
	
 
    	
Third   Avenue, Centrum 100
    
	
 
    	
Burton-upon-Trent,   Staffordshire
    
	
 
    	
DE14   2WD
    
	
 
    	
U.K.
    


 

Tel:[ 44-1283-496900], Fax:[ 44-1283-496541]

Representative: ANDREW FITZMAURICE   Title: Chief Executive Officer

 

The School Building Lease Contract of The British International School (hereinafter referred to as the “Lease Contract”) was signed on 19 September 2007 in Beijing and amended in June 2009 (the “First Amendment”) by Party A and Nord Anglia Education Limited (“Nord Anglia”). The Parties now wish to enter into a second lease amendment (“This Amendment”).Through friendly negotiation, both parties agree to amend the terms related in

 

-1-











 

the Lease Contract as follows:

 

1.             Clause 3.1 under Lease Contract is to be amended and replaced as follows:

 

3.1       The lease term of the School Buildings for Lease shall be 20 years, commencing on 1 September 2009 (i.e. the commencing date of the lease) and ending on 31 August 2029. Party B shall have the right to choose whether to extend the lease for another ten years upon the expiration of the lease term. Party B must serve a written notice to Party A of its intention to exercise its 10-year extension option by the year preceding the expiration of the lease term, that is, by 1 September 2028. The Parties will agree on the rental for the 10-year extension within one calendar month after the notice of extension is served.

 

2.              This Amendment is the important correction and supplementary, it’s the important component of the Lease Contract. In case of any discrepancy between this Amendment and the Lease Contract, this Amendment shall prevail. Any matters not covered under this Amendment shall be in accordance with the Lease Contract. Any unsettled matters of this Amendment shall be subject to further discussion between Party A and Party B.

 

3.              This Admendment is made in two original copies and each Party holds one copy. This Amendment shall go into effect after being signed and sealed by Party A and Party B.

 

	

    	

    


 

-2-
EXHIBIT 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. {section} 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Red Jade Holdings Limited (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeremy Mork, Chief Executive and Financial  Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. {section} 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



|Dated:  March 16, 2011
By  /s/ Jeremy Mork
-----------------------------
    Jeremy Mork
    Chief Executive and  Financial Officer
   (Principal Executive and Financial Officer)
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Exhibit 21

                         Continental Global Group, Inc.

               Subsidiaries of the Registrant at December 31, 2005

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                          Jurisdiction of Incorporation or
Subsidiaries (1)                          Organization                            Parent Company

<S>                                      <C>                                     <C>
Continental Conveyor & Equipment Company  Delaware                                Continental Global Group, Inc.

Continental Axle Products, Inc.           Delaware                                Continental Conveyor & Equipment
                                                                                  Company

Continental Conveyor & Equipment Pty.     Australia                               Continental Conveyor & Equipment
Ltd.                                                                              Company

BCE Holdings Pty. Ltd.                    Australia                               Continental Conveyor & Equipment Pty.
                                                                                  Ltd.

Continental ACE Pty. Ltd.                 Australia                               BCE Holdings Pty. Ltd.

Continental ACE Services Pty. Ltd.        Australia                               BCE Holdings Pty. Ltd.

Continental ACE Conveyor Components       Australia                               BCE Holdings Pty. Ltd.
Pty. Ltd.

A. Crane Pty. Ltd.                        Australia                               BCE Holdings Pty. Ltd.

Continental Control Systems Pty. Ltd.     Australia                               BCE Holdings Pty. Ltd.

Continental MECO Pty. Ltd.                Australia                               Continental Conveyor & Equipment Pty.
                                                                                  Ltd.

Continental Conveyor International Inc.   Delaware                                Continental Conveyor & Equipment
                                                                                  Company

Continental FSW Ltd.                      United Kingdom                          Continental Conveyor International
                                                                                  Inc.

Continental Conveyor Ltd.                 United Kingdom                          Continental FSW Ltd.

Continental MECO (Proprietary) Ltd.       South Africa                            Continental Conveyor International
                                                                                  Inc.

Goodman Conveyor Company                  Delaware                                Continental Global Group, Inc.
</TABLE>


(1)      Each of the subsidiaries listed is 100% owned by its parent company.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

DAVID BRASHER , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No s . 4D 14

- 3031 and 4D14

- 4137

[ March 18, 2015 ]

Consolidated a ppeal of orders denying rule 3.800 and 3.850 motions from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Matthew I. Destry , Judge; L.T. Case No. 12

- 15569 CF10A

.

D avid Brasher, Fort Lauderdale, pro s e.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed without prejudice to a ppellant filing a sworn and legally sufficient motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.801

. See Mathis v. State , 139 So. 3d 988 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014); Casteel v. State , 141 So. 3d 624 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) . Thereafter, appellant can revisit the legality of his sentence. See, e.g.

, McLeod v. State , 58 So. 3d 931 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011); Lawson v. State , 46 So. 3d 1189, 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010).

W ARNER , T

AYLOR and M AY , JJ, concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
# C_2018224EN.01020201.xml

| 27.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 224/202 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.6.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 224/202

---

P8_TA(2016)0460

EU-Solomon Islands Agreement on the short-stay visa waiver ***

European Parliament legislative resolution of 1 December 2016 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the Union, of the Agreement between the European Union and Solomon Islands on the short-stay visa waiver (09785/2016 — C8-0422/2016 — 2016/0096(NLE))

(Consent)

(2018/C 224/40)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (09785/2016), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (09785/2016),

| — | having regard to the draft agreement between the European Union and Solomon Islands on the short-stay visa waiver (09783/2016), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft agreement between the European Union and Solomon Islands on the short-stay visa waiver (09783/2016),

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 77(2)(a) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0422/2016), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council in accordance with Article 77(2)(a) and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a)(v), of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C8-0422/2016),

| — | having regard to Rule 99(1), first and third subparagraphs, Rule 99(2), and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rule 99(1), first and third subparagraphs, Rule 99(2), and Rule 108(7) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0336/2016), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0336/2016),

| 1. | Gives its consent to conclusion of the agreement; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Gives its consent to conclusion of the agreement;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of Solomon Islands. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of Solomon Islands.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-4800

JOHN DELBERT WOODS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond.

James R. Spencer, District Judge.

(CR-92-82)

Submitted: April 29, 1997

Decided: May 13, 1997

Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS,

Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

David Gammino, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Stephen Wiley

Miller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

John Delbert Woods pled guilty to violation of his supervised

release. The sentencing judge informed him that, if he wished to

appeal, his appeal must be filed within ten days. The judgment and

commitment order was entered on September 18, 1996. On October

9, 1996, Woods signed a notice of appeal which was filed with the

district court on October 15, 1996. On November 12, 1996, Woods'

attorney filed a motion to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal.

The district court denied this motion.

Rule 4(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure requires a

notice of appeal to be filed within ten days of judgment. The district

court may extend the time for filing a notice of appeal for thirty days

upon a showing of excusable neglect with or without a motion being

filed. Woods' notice of appeal clearly fell outside the ten-day appeal

period. However, because it was within thirty days of the expiration

of the appeal period, the district court had the discretion to grant an

extension upon a showing of excusable neglect. See Shah v. Hutto,

722 F.2d 1167, 1168-69 (4th Cir. 1983) (en banc). The district court,

however, chose to deny Woods' motion and we find no abuse of discretion in this decision. See Thompson v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours &

Co., 76 F.3d 530, 532 & n.2 (4th Cir. 1996) (providing standard).

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as untimely and deny counsel's

motion to withdraw.

This Court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his

right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further

review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel

believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may

move this Court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel's

motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the record and briefs, and oral argument

would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

 2
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 19

- 00092

- CR

J AMES R AY G REGORY

, Appellant

V

.

T HE S TATE OF T EXAS §

§

§

§

§ O n Appeal from the 372nd District Court

of Tarrant County ( 1503764D )

January 14, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Wallach

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial co ur t’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _ /s/ Mike Wallach

___________________ Justice Mike Wallach
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, July 27, 2021. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, July 27, 2021 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A21A1524. SEWELL PRINTING SERVICE, INC. v. DE LAGE LANDEN FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.
Upon consideration of the APPELLANT'S motion FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL in the above styled case, it is ordered that the motion the hereby GRANTED, and jurisdiction is released back to the trial court upon receipt of this order.
#### REFRESHMENTS PRODUCTS OF MIAMI, INC., a Florida corporation; Kandy-Pak, Inc., a foreign corporation; and Mister Lemonade, Inc., a foreign corporation, Appellants, *v.*Gary L. HENDRIX, Betty H. Rhoades, and Charles H. Rhoades, Appellees.

No. 70-965.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 30, 1970.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Orange County; B. C. Muszynski, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
p. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1796 Prepped byKeeia Richards

Document

Number: 

# 54 ) VI-B- 5 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/31/20084:20:37

PM Sheet 54 of 107P. 2 A-90-3 7 VI-B- 5 Thi s documen t

ha s bee nmove dt o IV-D-32 7 a t th e reques t

o f th e projec t officer . I t

wa s incorrectl y categoriz e originally .
#### Thomas M. COX v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 47718.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 18, 1974.

McKee & McDowell, Starkville, for appellant. .

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by T. E. Childs, Jr., Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

RODGERS, Presiding Justice.

The appellant contends on appeal that he sold the marijuana in question to a person other than the purchaser named in the indictment, viz : the narcotics agent. There was sufficient evidence to the contrary on which the jury was warranted in finding that the narcotics agent was the purchaser of the marijuana from the defendant.

The issue was for the jury, and the judgment of the lower court based on the jury verdict must be affirmed.

Affirmed.

PATTERSON, INZER, SUGG and WALKER, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-2000
<CASH>                                         201,666
<SECURITIES>                                    25,550
<RECEIVABLES>                                   56,010
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,581
<INVENTORY>                                     46,807
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               334,779
<PP&E>                                          13,245
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 378,171
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           67,044
<BONDS>                                          1,229
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     308,084
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   378,171
<SALES>                                        194,783
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               194,783
<CGS>                                          126,387
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  126,387
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                12,444
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 282
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                117,087
<INCOME-TAX>                                    39,735
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             77,334
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    77,334
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.44


</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Chief Judge Moon, Senior Judges Cole and Duff

MCV HOSPITAL/COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

v. Record No. 2118-95-2 MEMORANDUM OPINION * PER CURIAM VIOLET FORD-HILL MARCH 19, 1996

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General; Catherine C. Hammond, Deputy Assistant Attorney General; Gregory E. Lucyk, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Raymond L. Doggett, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, on briefs), for appellant. (Geoffrey R. McDonald; Laura L. Geller; McDonald & Snesil, on brief), for appellee.

MCV Hospital/Commonwealth of Virginia ("employer") contends that the Workers' Compensation Commission erred in finding that (1) Violet Ford-Hill's bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome qualifies as a compensable occupational disease within the meaning of "disease" under the Workers' Compensation Act ("the Act"); (2) Ford-Hill's carpal tunnel syndrome was caused by her employment; and (3) Dr. Robert S. Adelaar was an authorized treating physician.

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication. This appeal is controlled by the Supreme Court's decision in Stenrich Group v. Jemmott , ___ Va. ___, ___, ___ S.E.2d ___, ___ (1996) (holding that "job-related impairments resulting from2 cumulative trauma caused by repetitive motion, however labeled or however defined, are, as a matter of law, not compensable under the present provisions of the Act"). Because Stenrich is dispositive of this appeal, we need not address the remaining questions presented by employer. Accordingly, we reverse the commission's decision.

Reversed.