alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM AUDITED
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE TWELVE MONTHS
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         631,404
<SECURITIES>                                 4,732,585
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,129,880
<ALLOWANCES>                                   101,191
<INVENTORY>                                  3,922,543
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            13,817,996
<PP&E>                                      11,437,612
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,529,718
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              24,277,921
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,359,963
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        72,181
<OTHER-SE>                                  21,845,777
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                24,277,921
<SALES>                                     20,083,610
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,083,610
<CGS>                                        9,145,300
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,145,300
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            11,357,735
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,552
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (6,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             16,552
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,552
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
_____________

No. 95-2048

_____________

IOLA NORENE BULT, Individually *

and as Special Administratix of *

Estate of CHARLES R. CHENEY, *

* Appeal from the United States

Appellee, * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota.

v. *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

BEADLE COUNTY, a local *

governmental body; TOM BEERMAN, *

Individually and as Sheriff *

of Beadle County; LORI MEYERS, *

Individually and as Jailer for *

Beadle County; and unknown JOHN *

AND JANE DOES, Individually and *

in their Official Capacities as *

Employees of Beadle County, *

*

Appellants. *

__________

Submitted: November 17, 1995

Filed: December 5, 1995

__________

Before HANSEN, LAY, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

__________

PER CURIAM.

This is an interlocutory appeal arising out of a wrongful death

action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law by appellee, Iola

Norene Bult. Her son, Charles R. Cheney, committed suicide while being

held at the Beadle County Regional Corrections Center in Huron, South

Dakota. Appellants Beadle County, Sheriff Tom Beerman, and jailer Lori

Meyers seek reversal of the order of
 The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, United States District 1

Judge for the District of South Dakota.

2

the district court denying their motion for summary judgment based on

1

qualified immunity and their motion to dismiss defendants Beerman and

Beadle County for failure to state a claim. 

The district court concluded that the constitutional standard for

deliberate indifference regarding liability for jail suicides was clearly

established at the time of the suicide and that genuine issues of material

fact exist as to whether the officials reasonably would have known that

their actions and omissions would have violated that standard. 

After studying the record, we conclude the district court made no

error of fact or law and that an opinion would lack precedential value.

Its order denying summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity is

affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. The remainder of the appeal is dismissed

for lack of jurisdiction. See Johnson v. Jones, 115 S.Ct. 2151 (1995);

Swint v. Chambers County Com'n, 115 S.Ct. 1203 (1995). 

A true copy.

 Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY



AdvancePCS, L.P.
AdvancePCS Research, L.L.C.
AdvanceRx.com, L.P.
ADVP Consolidation, L.L.C.
ADVP Management, L.P.
Ambulatory Care Review Services, Inc.
Baumel-Eisner Neuromedical Institute, Inc.
FFI RX Managed Care, Inc.
First Florida International Holdings, Inc.
Foundation Health Pharmaceutical Services, Inc.
HMN Health Services, Inc.
PCS Health Systems, Inc.
PCS Holding Corporation
PCS Mail Services, Inc.
PCS Mail Services of Birmingham, Inc.
PCS Mail Services of Ft. Worth, Inc.
PCS Mail Services of Scottsdale, Inc.
PCS Services, Inc.
FILED

February 16, 1999

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

SEPTEMBER SESSION, 1998

STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) C.C.A. NO. 01C01-9710-CC-00499

)

Appellee, )

) COFFEE COUNTY

V. ) 

) HON. GERALD L. EWELL, SR.,

) JUDGE

LEONARD HUSTON PRATER, JR., )

)

Appellant. ) (DUI, THIRD OFFENSE) 

CONCURRING OPINION

As to the first issue, I agree with the author that the merger of the

offenses, imposing only one sentence, eliminated the double jeopardy problem. 

Otherwise, State v. Denton, 938 S.W.2d 373 (Tenn. 1996), would have precluded

dual convictions. 

In Denton, our supreme court observed that "[t]he key issue in multiple

punishment cases is legislative intent." 938 S.W.2d at 379. The court suggested a

Blockburger analysis as the first step:

[W]here the same act or transaction constitutes a

violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be

applied to determine whether there are two offenses or

only one is whether each provision requires proof of an

additional fact which the other does not.

Denton, 938 S.W.2d at 379 (quoting Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299,

304 (1932)). 
2

Because each section of the DUI statute contains different elements,

the Blockburger test would not preclude dual convictions. Blockburger, however, "is

not conclusive." Denton, 938 S.W.2d at 379. Courts must also consider whether

the same evidence is used to prove both offenses. Id. at 380. In Duchac v. State,

505 S.W.2d 237 (Tenn. 1973), our supreme court stated the rule as follows:

One test of identity of offenses is whether the same

evidence is required to prove them. If the same evidence

is not required, then the fact that both charges relate to,

and grow out of, one transaction, does not make a single

offense where two are defined by the statutes.

Denton, 938 S.W.2d at 380 (quoting Duchac, 505 S.W.2d at 239). Finally, courts

should examine other factors relative to legislative intent: 

(1) whether there were multiple victims involved; 

(2) whether several discrete acts were involved; and (3)

whether the evil at which each offense is directed is the

same or different.

Denton, 938 S.W.2d at 381 (footnote omitted).

Here, there was a single episode of driving under the influence of

alcohol. The same evidence was used to prove both offenses. Moreover, each

conviction arose under the same code section of the DUI statute, Tenn. Code Ann.

§ 55-10-401. In my view, the legislative intent would permit only one conviction. 

_________________________________

Gary R. Wade, Presiding Judge
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1837 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1837

   To require that 401(k)-type pension plans be subject to the same 
prohibited transaction rules that apply to traditional defined benefit 
                             pension plans.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 5, 1996

  Mrs. Boxer introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
         referred to the Committee on Labor and Human Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To require that 401(k)-type pension plans be subject to the same 
prohibited transaction rules that apply to traditional defined benefit 
                             pension plans.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``401(k) Pension Protection Act of 
1996''.

SEC. 2. CERTAIN PROHIBITED TRANSACTIONS APPLIED TO 401(k) PLANS.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 407(d) of the Employee 
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1107(d)) is amended 
by adding at the end the following new sentence: ``Such term also 
excludes an individual account plan that includes a qualified cash or 
deferred arrangement described in section 401(k) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986, if such plan, together with all other individual 
account plans maintained by the employer, owns more than 10 percent of 
the assets owned by all pension plans maintained by the employer. For 
purposes of the preceding sentence, the assets of such plan subject to 
participant control (within the meaning of section 404(c)) shall not be 
taken into account.''.
    (b) Effective Date; Transition Rule.--
            (1) Effective date.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), 
        the amendment made by this section shall apply to plans on and 
        after the date of the enactment of this Act.
            (2) Transition rule for plans holding excess securities or 
        property.--In the case of a plan which on the date of the 
        enactment of this Act has holdings of employer securities and 
        employer real property (as defined in section 407(d) of the 
        Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 
        1107(d)) in excess of the amount specified in such section 407, 
        the amendment made by this section shall apply to any 
        acquisition of such securities and property on or after such 
        date of enactment, but shall not apply to the specific holdings 
        which constitute such excess during the period of such excess.
                                 <all>
```
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 238

To create a legislative line item veto by requiring separate enrollment of

items in appropriations bills.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 18 (legislative day, JANUARY 10), 1995

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

referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration

A BILL

To create a legislative line item veto by requiring separate

enrollment of items in appropriations bills.

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

3 That (a) the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is amend4 ed by adding at the end thereof the following new title:

5 ‘‘TITLE XI—SEPARATE ENROLLMENT

6 AUTHORITY LEGISLATIVE LINE ITEM VETO

7 ‘‘SEC. 1101. (a)(1) Notwithstanding any other provi8 sion of law, when any general or special appropriation bill

9 or any bill or joint resolution making supplemental, defi10 ciency, or continuing appropriations passes both Houses
2

•S 238 IS

1 of the Congress in the same form, the Secretary of the

2 Senate (in the case of a bill or joint resolution originating

3 in the Senate) or the Clerk of the House of Representa4 tives (in the case of a bill or joint resolution originating

5 in the House of Representatives) shall cause the enrolling

6 clerk of such House to enroll each item of such bill or

7 joint resolution as a separate bill or joint resolution, as

8 the case may be.

9 ‘‘(2) A bill or joint resolution that is required to be

10 enrolled pursuant to paragraph (1)—

11 ‘‘(A) shall be enrolled without substantive revi12 sion;

13 ‘‘(B) shall conform in style and form to the ap14 plicable provisions of chapter 2 of title 1, United

15 States Code (as such provisions are in effect on the

16 date of the enactment of this title); and

17 ‘‘(C) shall bear the designation of the measure

18 of which it was an item prior to such enrollment, to19 gether with such other designation as may be nec20 essary to distinguish such bill or joint resolution

21 from other bills or joint resolutions enrolled pursu22 ant to paragraph (1) with respect to the same meas23 ure.

24 ‘‘(b) A bill or joint resolution enrolled pursuant to

25 subsection (a)(1) with respect to an item shall be deemed
3

•S 238 IS

1 to be a bill under clauses 2 and 3 of section 7 of article

2 I of the Constitution of the United States and shall be

3 signed by the presiding officers of both Houses of the Con4 gress and presented to the President for approval or dis5 approval (and otherwise treated for all purposes) in the

6 manner provided for bills and joint resolutions generally.

7 ‘‘(c) For purposes of this concurrent resolution, the

8 term ‘item’ means any numbered section and any unnum9 bered paragraph of—

10 ‘‘(1) any general or special appropriation bill;

11 and

12 ‘‘(2) any bill or joint resolution making supple13 mental, deficiency, or continuing appropriations.’’.

14 (b) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall

15 apply to bills and joint resolutions agreed to by the Con16 gress during the two-calendar-year period beginning with

17 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.18.1


                          CARDIAC PATHWAYS CORPORATION

                              AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 TO

                            APRIL 18, 1996 AGREEMENT




     This Amendment Number 1 to the Agreement dated as of April 18,, by and
between Earle Canty ("Executive") and Cardiac Pathways Corporation, a Delaware
corporation ("the Company")1996 is made this 31st day of August, 1998.

     WHEREAS, on January 22, 1996, Executive was granted certain stock options
(the "Options") pursuant to the Company's 1991 Stock Plan;

     WHEREAS, the Company and Executive executed a promissory note (the "First
Note") on April 18, 1996;

     WHEREAS, the Company desired to assist Executive in paying the taxes
associated with exercise of the Options;

     WHEREAS, the Company and the Executive executed a promissory note (the
"Second Note") on December 23, 1996;

     NOW, THEREFORE in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter
contained, the Company and Executive agree as follows:

     1.   The maturity dates of each of the First Note and the Second Note shall
be extended to be the earlier of (i) the date that the Executive ceases to
provide consulting services for the Company or (ii) February 28, 1999.

     2.   Each of the Company and the Executive shall execute simultaneously
herewith an amendment to each of the First Note and the Second Note to revise
the due dates of such notes to be substantially as set forth in paragraph 1
above.

     3.   Nothing in this Amendment Number 1 shall be deemed to waive or
otherwise impair the Company's ability to repurchase any shares of the Company's
Common Stock held by the Executive that are unvested as of the termination of
his full-time employment as an officer of the Company.

     4.   The remaining terms of the Agreement dated April 18, 1996 between the
Company and the Executive, the Security Agreements, Joint Escrow Instructions
and Restricted Stock Purchase Agreements related thereto shall remain in force
and effect without regard to this

                                       -1-

<PAGE>   2


Amendment Number 1, and this Amendment Number 1 shall become a part of such
Agreement as if made on and incorporated as of the date of such agreement.

     5. This Amendment Number 1 may be executed in counterparts, and both
signatures shall constitute the complete document.

     6. This Amendment Number 1 shall be governed by the laws of the State of
California without regard to conflict of law principles.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment Number 1 has been entered into as of the
date first set forth above.

EARLE CANTY                            CARDIAC PATHWAYS CORPORATION


/s/ Earle Canty                        By: /s/ William Starling
------------------------------             ------------------------------
                                       Its: President
                                           ------------------------------

                                       -2-
**Exhibit 10.129GUARANTY AGREEMENT(AHC Trailside, Inc.)THIS**GUARANTY AGREEMENT** (this “Agreement”) is made and given as of February 28, 2003 by AHC TRAILSIDE, INC., a Delaware corporation (the "Guarantor"), for the benefit of SNH ALT MORTGAGED PROPERTIES TRUST, a Maryland real estate investment trust (together with its successors and assigns, the “Lender”).**WITNESSETH :     WHEREAS, pursuant to a Lease Agreement, dated as of the date hereof (as amended from time to time, the “Lease”), between SNH ALT Leased Properties Trust (together with its successors and assigns, the “Landlord”) and the Guarantor, the Landlord has agreed to lease to the Guarantor, and the Guarantor has agreed to lease from the Landlord, certain real property, together with related improvements and certain personal property, as more particularly described in the Lease; and     **WHEREAS,**pursuant to a Loan Agreement, dated as of the date hereof (as amended from time to time, the “Loan Agreement”), between the Lender and Pomacy Corporation (the “Borrower”), the Borrower has agreed to borrow from the Lender and the Lender has agreed to loan to the Borrower, the principal amount of SIX MILLION NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($6,900,000), as more particularly described in the Loan Agreement; and     **WHEREAS,**the Lease and the Loan Agreement are cross-defaulted and cross-collateralized; and     **WHEREAS,**the Landlord and the Lender are both wholly-owned subsidiaries of Senior Housing Properties Trust; and     **WHEREAS,** the Guarantor and the Borrower are both wholly-owned subsidiaries of Alterra Healthcare Corporation; and     **WHEREAS**, it is a condition precedent to the Landlord's entering into the Lease and the Lender's entering into the Loan Agreement that the Guarantor guaranty all of the payment and performance obligations of the Borrower with respect to the Loan Agreement; and     **WHEREAS**, the transactions contemplated by the Lease and the Loan Agreement are of direct material benefit to the Guarantor; and****
II

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2107

To authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment (most-favorednation treatment) to the products of Mongolia.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 24 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 20), 1996

Mr. THOMAS (for himself, Mr. ROBB, and Mr. MCCAIN) introduced the

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To authorize the extension of nondiscriminatory treatment

(most-favored-nation treatment) to the products of Mongolia.

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

3 SECTION 1. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.

4 The Congress finds that Mongolia—

5 (1) has received most-favored-nation treatment

6 since 1991 and has been found to be in full compli7 ance with the freedom of emigration requirements

8 under title IV of the Trade Act of 1974;

9 (2) has since ending its nearly 70 years of de10 pendence on the former Soviet Union, made remark-
2

•S 2107 IS

1 able progress in establishing a democratic political

2 system and creating a free-market economic system;

3 (3) has recently held its third election under its

4 new constitution, resulting in a parliamentary ma5 jority for the coalition of democratic opposition par6 ties and a peaceable transfer of power to the new

7 government;

8 (4) has concluded a bilateral trade treaty with

9 the United States in 1991, and a bilateral invest10 ment treaty in 1994;

11 (5) has acceded to the Agreement Establishing

12 the World Trade Organization;

13 (6) has demonstrated a strong desire to build a

14 friendly and cooperative relationship with the United

15 States on trade matters; and

16 (7) the extension of unconditional most-favored17 nation treatment to the products of Mongolia would

18 enable the United States to avail itself of all rights

19 under the World Trade Organization with respect to

20 Mongolia.

21 SEC. 2. TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLE IV OF

22 THE TRADE ACT OF 1974 TO MONGOLIA.

23 (a) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATIONS AND EXTEN24 SIONS OF NONDISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT.—Notwith-
3

•S 2107 IS

1 standing any provision of title IV of the Trade Act of 1974

2 (19 U.S.C. 2431 et seq.), the President may—

3 (1) determine that such title should no longer

4 apply to Mongolia; and

5 (2) after making a determination under para6 graph (1) with respect to Mongolia, proclaim the ex7 tension of nondiscriminatory treatment (most-fa8 vored-nation treatment) to the products of that

9 country.

10 (b) TERMINATION OF APPLICATION OF TITLE IV.—

11 On or after the effective date of the extension under sub12 section (a)(2) of nondiscriminatory treatment to the prod13 ucts of Mongolia, title IV of the Trade Act of 1974 shall

14 cease to apply to that country.

Æ
September 18, 2015

Mr. Stephen Uhl

4904 Wunnenberg Way

West Chester, OH 45069

Dear Mr. Uhl:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

§§ 45.23(b), 61.113(a) and (b), 91.7(a), 91.103(b), 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a), 

91.203(a) and (b), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(2), 91.417(a) and (b), and part 21, 

Subpart H, of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not

process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We received your May 26, 2015 exemption request filed in Docket No. FAA−2015−1973, but 

we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does not comply with the 

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must 

send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosures
3
4