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

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3101 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3101

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow as a deduction in 
    determining adjusted gross income the deduction for expenses in 
  connection with services as a member of a reserve component of the 
                   Armed Forces of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

           September 25 (legislative day, September 22), 2000

 Mr. Ashcroft (for himself and Mr. Sessions) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow as a deduction in 
    determining adjusted gross income the deduction for expenses in 
  connection with services as a member of a reserve component of the 
                   Armed Forces of the United States.

    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 ``Reservists Tax Relief Act of 2000''.

SEC. 2. DEDUCTION OF CERTAIN EXPENSES OF RESERVISTS.

    (a) Deduction Allowed.--Section 162 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 (relating to certain trade or business expenses) is amended by 
redesignating subsection (p) as subsection (q) and inserting after 
subsection (o) the following new subsection:
    ``(p) Treatment of Expenses of Members of Reserve Component of 
Armed Forces of the United States.--For purposes of subsection (a), in 
the case of an individual who performs services as a member of a 
reserve component of the Armed Forces of the United States at any time 
during the taxable year, such individual shall be deemed to be away 
from home in the pursuit of a trade or business during any period for 
which such individual is away from home in connection with such 
service.''.
    (b) Deduction Allowed Whether or Not Taxpayer Elects To Itemize.--
Section 62(a)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 
certain trade and business deductions of employees) is amended by 
adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(D) Certain expenses of members of reserve 
                components of the armed forces of the united states.--
                The deductions allowed by section 162 which consist of 
                expenses paid or incurred by the taxpayer in connection 
                with the performance of services by such taxpayer as a 
                member of a reserve component of the Armed Forces of 
                the United States.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to amounts paid or incurred in taxable years beginning after 
December 31, 2000.
                                 <all>
```
# ^a^t^^-/Haf'f0 ^ f'^f/i^e ^ CHAMBERO FCOMMERC E 6i4s.u,hBrond,.a y Rober t P . Hatc h Saiu n Maria , C

A Pr,sida,t/CE O & VISITO R& CONVENTIO N BUREA U 93^^54-5] } J

Augus t 19,201 0 - < • ' -j ; Aloh aLey , Actin g Associat e Directo r > > yl<::: ^ U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n —r-O p 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , ^ E WS6-3i O ^ - ^ ^ ^ Washington . D C 2059 0 _ j Dear Ms . Ley , Th e Sant aMari aValle y Chambe r o f Commerce , an dit s subordinat e unit s th e Sant a Mari aValle y Economi c Developmen t Commissio n an dth e Sant aMari aValle y Visito r an dConventio n Bureau , i s please dt o offe r thi s lette r

o f suppor t fo r th e Sant aMari a Publi c Airport

Distric t i n it s ques t

t o receiv e on e o f

th e FAA' s Smal l Communit y Air Servic e Developmen t

Grants . T o demonstrat e ou r

commitment , an dcontinuin g suppor t fo r enliance dai r

servic e t o Denver , th e Chambe r

wil l contribut e th e su mo f $20,00 0 t o augmen t

th e impressiv e su m pledge db y th e Airport . Additionally , w e wil l se t asid e 510,000 , representin g in-kin d service s an dmarketin g assistanc e t o assis t i n thi s effort . A synchronize dcampaig n i s underwa y t o attrac t additiona l ai r

servic e t o Sant aMari aa s evidence db y th e numbe r o f letter s o f support I hav e read . It

i s crucia l w e hav e th e support o f th e Departmen t

o f Transportatio n i f

w e ar e t o mov e forward . Than k yo u i n advanc e fo

r you r favorabl e consideration . Pleas e d o no t

hesitat e t o contac t

m e personall y i f

Ima y clarif

y ou r position . Respectfiilly , ^ » Robert P . Hatc h Presiden t an dCE O

Mission : T o promot e afavorabl e economi

c cliinat e uibif e niabing th

e SantaMari n VaUe

y abette r plac e t o liv e ani l work

. (805 ) 925-240 3 • (805 ) 928-755 9 (Fax ) • (800 ) 331-377 9 • http:liwivw.snntamaria.eom• email : sinvcc@santnmana.eo m
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 23.1


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors
Resource Bankshares Corporation

     We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
Form S-8 of Resource Bankshares Corporation of our report dated January 30,
2001, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Resource Bankshares
Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000 and 1999, and the related
consolidated statements of income, stockholders'  equity, and cash flows for
each of the years in the three year period ended December 31, 2000, which report
appears in the December 31, 2000 Annual Report on Form 10K of Resource
Bankshares Corporation.

                                      /s/ Goodman & Company, L.L.P.

Norfolk, Virginia
March 26, 2001
EXHIBIT 3.2





CERTIFICATE OF CORRECTION OF


AMENDED AND RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION


OF MAGMA DESIGN AUTOMATION, INC.





Magma Design Automation,
Inc., a corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware,





DOES HEREBY CERTIFY, AS FOLLOWS:





1.    The name of the Corporation is Magma
Design Automation, Inc.





2.    That an Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation was
filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware on November 26, 2001 and that said Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation requires correction as permitted by Section 103(f) of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware.





3.    The inaccuracy or defect of said Amended and Restated Certificate of
Incorporation is that it inadvertently contained incorrect expiration dates for the initial terms of each class of the classified Board of Directors.





4.    Article VI, Section B of the Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation is corrected to read in its entirety as follows:





B.    Classes of Directors.    The Board of Directors, other than
those directors elected by the holders of any series of Preferred Stock as provided for or fixed pursuant to the provisions of Article IV of this Restated Certificate of Incorporation, shall be divided into three classes, designated Class I, Class
II and Class III, as nearly equal in number as possible, and the term of office of directors of one class shall expire at each annual meeting of stockholders, and in all cases as to each director until his or her successor shall be elected and shall
qualify or until his or her earlier resignation, removal from office, death or incapacity. Additional directorships resulting from an increase in number of directors shall be apportioned among the classes as equally as possible. The initial term of
office of directors of Class I shall expire at the annual meeting of stockholders in 2002, the initial term of office of directors of Class II shall expire at the annual meeting of stockholders in 2003, and the initial term of office of directors of
Class III shall expire at the annual meeting of stockholders in 2004. At each annual meeting of stockholders the number of directors equal to the number of directors of the class whose term expires at the time of such meeting (or, if less, the
number of directors properly nominated and qualified for election) shall be elected to hold office until the third succeeding annual meeting of stockholders after their election.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Magma Design Automation, Inc., has caused this Certificate of Correction to be signed by Rajeev Madhavan, its Chief Executive Officer and Secretary,
this 1st day of June, 2002.





By

/s/    RAJEEV
MADHAVANRajeev Madhavan Chief
Executive Officer and Secretary
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL
         INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE SEPTEMBER 30,
         1999 BALANCE SHEET, STATEMENTS OF INCOME
         AND STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS, AND IS
         QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
         SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
<PERIOD-TYPE> 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END> DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END> SEP-30-1999

<S>                              <C>
<CASH>                            1,162
<SECURITIES>                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                     4,748
<ALLOWANCES>                         38
<INVENTORY>                      17,234
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  1,120
<PP&E>                           47,243
<DEPRECIATION>                    9,938
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                   62,239
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             8,476
<BONDS>                          29,836
<COMMON>                         14,641
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             2,295
<PREFERRED>                           0
<OTHER-SE>                        4,893
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>     62,239
<SALES>                          17,498
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                 17,498
<CGS>                             8,117
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     8,117
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  5,359
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                1,442
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   2,507
<INCOME-TAX>                      1,009
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               1,498
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                      1,498
<EPS-BASIC>                       .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                       .21


</TABLE>
#### The Fullerton Lumber Company, Appellant, v. W. H. Spencer, Appellee.

Attachment: WRONGEUL issue : damages. In an action for the wrongful suing out of an attachment against property used only for the purposes of sale the owner is not entitled to recover, as damages, interest on the value of such property from the time of seizure, without a showing of any loss merely from the failure to have the property on hand.

*Appeal from Woodbury District Court.*— Hon. G-eorge W. Wakefield, Judge.

Wednesday, October 29, 1890.

Action on account for lumber, aided by attachment. Defendant admits the indebtedness as claimed, but, by way of cross-action, alleges that the attachment was wrongfully sued out, and the issues arise on defendant’s counterclaim. The jury found specially that the writ was wrongfully sued out, and, by its general verdict, found for defendant in the sum of forty-one dollars and forty-nine cents, for which judgment was entered, and the plaintiff appeals.

*Stone &*Owen, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

GrBANOER, J.

The plaintiff, by virtue of the attachment, seized a quantity of lumber which was kept for sale in a lumber-yard, and the court instructed the jury *550that there was no depreciation in tbe value of the property taken, and that nothing could be allowed therefor. The court then said to the jury: “If you find that the property was for use only for the purposes of sale in a lumber-yard, then the value of the use would be interest at six per cent, per annum on the value of such lumber so taken for the time the same was withheld from defendant.” Complaint is made of the rule given, and we think justly. There is no showing of any loss to defendant by the taking of the lumber merely because of a failure to have it on hand, that is, no sale of it was lost; and under the instruction of the court it must be regarded as not damaged. If the lumber had not been taken, defendant could not, in the nature of things, have kept the lumber on hand and received what the rule of the court gave him. If by the taking defendant was deprived of any use of the lumber, the value of such use is his damage. It is not of a class of property that the law presumes will be used in the sense of the use being of value to the owner barring that of its use for sale, and no claim is made of damage because of a loss of sale, and for such damage a different rule would apply. The general rule is, where personal property is wrongfully taken and detained for a time from the owner, the value of its use during such time. If it has no such value, the damage must be said to be nominal, and a rule of general damages that would give interest on the value in such a case is erroneous. The case must be reversed for the error-indicated, and, as there is no appearance for appellee to aid us by a brief and argument, we do not consider other questions. See *McKern v.*Albia, 69 Iowa, 447; *Deeds v. Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co.,*69 Iowa, 164; *Gilfeather v. Council Bluffs,*69 Iowa, 310; and *Dodd v. Scott, ante,*p. 319. The judgment below is reversed.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3201 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3201

             To rename the National Museum of American Art.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            October 12 (legislative day, September 22), 2000

 Mr. Frist (for himself, Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Moynihan) introduced the 
following bill; which was read twice, considered, read the third time, 
                               and passed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
             To rename the National Museum of American Art.

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

SECTION 1. RENAMING OF NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AMERICAN ART.

    (a) In General.--The National Museum of American Art, as designated 
under section 1 of Public Law 96-441 (20 U.S.C. 71 note), shall be 
known as the ``Smithsonian American Art Museum''.
    (b) References in Law.--Any reference in any law, regulation, 
document, or paper to the National Museum of American Art shall be 
considered to be a reference to the Smithsonian American Art Museum.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    Section 1 shall take effect on the day after the date of enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 21.1
SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

Name:      Vidipax, Inc.

Jurisdiction of incorporation
  Or organization:    New York
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other Business Names: N/A

Name:      Loudeye Technologies UK Ltd.

Jurisdiction of incorporation
  Or organization:    United Kingdom

Other Business Names: N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name:      Loudeye Enterprise Communications

Jurisdiction of incorporation
  Or organization:    Delaware

Other Business Names: N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name:      Loudeye Sample Services, Inc.

Jurisdiction of incorporation
  Or organization:    Delaware

Other Business Names: N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name:      Monstar Labs Limited

Jurisdiction of incorporation
  Or organization:    New Zealand

Other Business Names: N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name:      Addition Systems, Inc.

Jurisdiction of incorporation
  Or organization:    Delaware

Other Business Names: N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name:     TT Holding Corp.

Jurisdiction of incorporation
  Or organization:    Delaware

Other Business Names: N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name:     Technology Education Network, Inc.

Jurisdiction of incorporation
  Or organization:    Delaware

Other Business Names: Streampipe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name:     Rapid Infusion Corp.

Jurisdiction of incorporation
  Or organization:    New York

Other Business Names: N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name:     SOS Technology Corp.

Jurisdiction of incorporation
  Or organization:    New York

Other Business Names: N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name:     SPI Acquisition Corp.

Jurisdiction of incorporation
  Or organization:    New York

Other Business Names: N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Name:     TEN International, Inc.

Jurisdiction of incorporation
  Or organization:    Delaware

Other Business Names: N/A
Materials Not Included in

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket

Docket Number: FAA- 2009-1222

Directorate Identifier: 2009NM153AD

MPD D621U400-9 --- 4/08

MPD D621 U400-9 --- 3/09

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained In the

Supplemental AD Docket

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate

Rules Docket

1601 Lind Ave. Sw.,

Renton, WA 98057

425.227.1221

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 pm., Monday through Friday,

except Federal holidays.

Form Date: 03/05/2008
#### STATE v. FRANK MERRITT.

*Indictment*— Removal *of Crop.*

An indictment for removal of crop, in violation of the act of 1876-77, ch. 288, (¡6, charging the defendant with removing the same “without satisfying all lions on said crop,” is defective. The words of the statute, “before satisfying all liens held *by the lesear or his assigns*on said crop,” should have been followed.

*(State*v. *Stanton,*1 Ired., 424; Slate v. *Thorne,*81 N. 0., 555; *State*v. *Liles,*78 N. C., 496, cited and approved).

INDICTMENT for a misdemeanor tried at Spring Term, 1883, of Harnett Superior Court, before *MaeRae, J.*

The defendant is charged with the violation of the act of 1876-77, eh. 283, §6, in removing crops. The jury found a verdict of guilty, and thereupon the defendant- moved in arrest of judgment, upon the ground that the indictment charged that the corn and fodder alleged to have been removed was removed “ without satisfying *cell liens*on said crop”; whereas the statute provides, in respect to such removal, * * * and “before

satisfying all liens held by the *lessor or his assigns*on said crop.”' The judge sustained the motion, and from the judgment rendered in favor of the defendant the solicitor for the state appealed.

*Attorney-General,*for the State.

No counsel for the defendant.

Merrimon, J.

We think the court properly arrested the judgment. An essential part of the offence intended to be charged in the indictment is the removal of the crop, or any part thereof, from the land “ before satisfying all liens held by the *lessor or his assigns*on said crop;” not necessarily *all, liens*that may be on it. The indictment does not contain the words of the statute, or the substance of them. The words substituted *507for them are “without satisfying *all liens*on said crop.” These words do not charge the offence. *Non constat,*that the lessor or his assigns had any lien at all on the crop. It does not appear upon the face of the indictment that any offence is charged. It must be alleged in the indictment, and proved on trial, that the “ *lessor or his assigns”*held liens on the crop undischarged.

The jury found a general verdict of guilty. The court, seeing the indictment and the verdict, could not tell that any criminal offence had been *committed;*that the crop, or any part thereof, had been removed from the land *“*before satisfying all liens held by the *lessor or his assigns*on said crop.” It may be the jury found that liens in favor of other persons had not been satisfied, in which case no offence has been committed. The issue submitted to the jury was broad and unlimited as to liens in favor of any person, and the verdict had like compass.

The rule is, that in describing a statutory offence, the pleader should employ, as nearly as may be, the very words of the statute, or words that certainly imply in substance the same thing. It is always safer to follow the material words and phraseology of the statute. *State*v. *Stanton, 1*Ired., 424; *State*v, *Thorne,*81 N. C., 555; *State*v. *Liles,*78 N. C., 496.

There is no error. Judgment affirmed. Let this be certified.

No error. Affirmed.
#### D. J. AARON v. THE PIONEER LUMBER COMPANY.

*Service of Summons on Corporation.*

To make service of process on a corporation a copy of the same must be left with the officer of the company to whom it is delivered or read, as provided by sections 217 and 840 (Rule XV) of *The Coda.*

This was a civil ACTION, brought before a Justice of the Peace, for the recovery of $200 due by note from the defendant to the plaintiff. The Constable in the township in which the defendant company had its principal place of business, and where its officers all resided, served the summons by handing it to the President and Secretary and *190Treasurer of the defendant company, which was read by them and returned to the Constable. These were the only officers of the company. There was no copy of the summons left with any officer or other person representing the company. On the return day of the summons the defendant did not appear, and on the hearing the Justice rendered judgment against the defendant and in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of $200 and costs.

Two days after the rendition of the judgment tlie defendant, upon affidavit and notice to the plaintiff, njoved the Justice who rendered the j udgment to set aside said j udgment on the ground that there had been no service of the summons. On the hearing of said motion the Justice refused to set aside the judgment, and the defendant appealed to the Superior Court, at the November Term, 1892, of which, Bryan, Judge, reversed the decision of the Justice and set aside the judgment on the ground that there had been no service of the summons on the defendant, and rendered judgment against the plaintiff for costs. From which judgment and rulings the plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.

*Mr. W. C. Munroe,*for plaintiff (appellant).

*Mr. W. R. Allen,*for defendant.

Fisk Curiam:

No copy of the summons having been delivered to the officer of the defendant corporation upon whom the Constable attempted to make service of that process, no proper service was made, for *The Code,*§217, provides that service of a summons on a corporation must be by delivering a copy, and by section 840 (Rule XV) this applies to the service of process issued from Justice’s Courts.

Affirmed. No Error.