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

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 997

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the

exclusion for amounts received under qualified group legal services plans.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 29 (legislative day, JUNE 19), 1995

Mr. D’AMATO 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 make

permanent the exclusion for amounts received under

qualified group legal services plans.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF EXCLUSION FOR

4 AMOUNTS RECEIVED UNDER QUALIFIED

5 GROUP LEGAL SERVICES PLANS.

6 (a) GENERAL RULE.—Section 120 of the Internal

7 Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to amounts received under

8 qualified group legal services plans) is amended by strik9 ing subsection (e) and by redesignating subsection (f) as

10 subsection (e).
2

•S 997 IS

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

2 subsection (a) shall apply to taxable years beginning after

3 December 31, 1994.

Æ
Exhibit









CONFIDENTIAL


April 7, 2017


NAME
DEPARTMENT




Dear NAME:


This letter replaces and supersedes the letter you received on January 20, 2016, regarding a Transaction Bonus.  


As you know, Fidelity & Guaranty Life (“FGL” or “we” or “Company”) entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger with Anbang Insurance Group Co., Ltd. (“Anbang”) and certain other parties, pursuant to which FGL will become a subsidiary of Anbang (the “Anbang Transaction”), effective as of the closing of the merger (the “Closing”).


In recognition of your ongoing contributions toward a Closing, FGL hereby grants to you a one-time cash transaction bonus in the amount of $X,XXX (the “Transaction Bonus”).  The Transaction Bonus will be paid to you, less applicable withholding taxes, within 30 days following the Closing, subject to your continued employment with FGL through the Closing.


Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the Closing does not occur and FGL enters into an agreement with a new party that would result in a “Change in Control” (as defined in the FGL 2013 Stock Incentive Plan, and such transaction, the “Subsequent Transaction”), then the Transaction Bonus will be paid to you, less applicable withholding taxes, within 30 days following the closing of the Subsequent Transaction, subject to your continued employment with FGL through such closing date.   


If your employment with FGL terminates for any reason prior to the closing of the Anbang Transaction or a Subsequent Transaction, as applicable, or if neither transaction is consummated, you will not be entitled to receive payment of the Transaction Bonus.


HRG Group, Inc. and I thank you again for your hard work and dedication on this critical project.  If you have any questions about the terms of this letter, please feel free to contact me.  


Sincerely,








Chris Littlefield
CEO & President




Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance Company | Two Ruan Center | 601 Locust St, Suite #1400, Des Moines, IA 50309
1 888 697 LIFE | 515 244 1199 (fax) | www.fglife.com
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-6511

DAVEY JAMES REEDY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

GEORGE ALLEN, Governor; RON ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; GENE

M. JOHNSON, Deputy Director, Virginia Department of Corrections; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District

Judge. (CA-96-336-AM)

Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 9, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Davey James Reedy, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the dismissal without prejudice of his 42

U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. The district court dismissed Appellant's complaint because he failed to allege that he suffered a

deprivation of a constitutional right. We dismiss the appeal for

lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This

court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291 (1988), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28

U.S.C. § 1292 (1988); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial

Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed

is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union

392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993).

We dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 39 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 39

 Providing for the ``State of the Union'' address by the President of 
                           the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 22, 1996

   Mr. Dole submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
                        considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Providing for the ``State of the Union'' address by the President of 
                           the United States.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That the two Houses of Congress assemble in the Hall of the House of 
Representatives on Tuesday, January 23, 1996, at 9 p.m., for the 
purpose of receiving such communication as the President of the United 
States shall be pleased to make to them.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA Supreme Court Cause No. DA 23
- 0271
IN RE THE MARRIAGE OF: CLAUDIA DEL TORAL,

Petitioner and Appellee, and DAVID FLINT RICHARD, Respondent and Appellant. ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED EXTENSION OF TIME

On July 17 th, 2023, the Appellant, David Flint Richard, filed his Unopposed Motion to for Extension of Time. Pursuant to Rule 26 of the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure, the Montana Supreme Court will grant an extension of time in which appellant is required to file his opening brief. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that appellant's request for a thirty (30) day extension of time in which to file his opening brief is GRANTED.

For the Court, By: Justice

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION Pg. 1 Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court July 18 2023

07/18/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0271
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0500 CITY OF WHITEFISH,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JOSHUA ZUMWALT,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including May 11, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 4 2022

04/04/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0500
Conference Call with Environmental Groups on WQS Regulatory Revisions

Logistics: November 10, 2011; 2 pm - 4 pm (conference call)

Attendees: Various environmental groups, including Clean Water Network, River Network, 

Gulf Restoration Network, Albert Ettinger (representing several organizations), Amigos Bravos 

(New Mexico), Alabama Rivers Alliance, Conservancy of Southwest Florida, and NRDC. 

EPA OST – Grace Robiou, Manjali Vlcan, Ellen Gilinsky, Jeff Lape, Christina Christensen.

Topics Covered:

1. Brief Background/History

2. Summary of proposed regulatory revisions in six key issue areas

3. Overview of schedule and next steps

4. Questions/Answers
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133365 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 133365 

 COA: 275013 

Genesee CC: 05-017112-FC 

JOHN JEROME TOPP, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 19, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t0521 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

May 30, 2007 

 Clerk
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          10,568
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,081
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (241)
<INVENTORY>                                      3,150
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,610
<PP&E>                                         570,042
<DEPRECIATION>                                 187,469
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 413,517
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,729
<BONDS>                                        182,685
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         15
<COMMON>                                           188
<OTHER-SE>                                     197,339
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   413,517
<SALES>                                         52,113
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                52,340
<CGS>                                           30,641
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   36,709
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    62
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,406
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,084
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,084
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,084
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .30
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .30
        

</TABLE>
III

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 28

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the D.C. StandDown ’95.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 29 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 25), 1995

Mr. JEFFORDS submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the D.C.

StandDown ’95.

Whereas grassroots community StandDowns help homeless

veterans’ life on the streets and have provided thousands

of homeless veterans with life’s necessities including food,

clothing, medical attention, legal counseling, mental

health treatments and job counseling and referrals;

Whereas the growth of StandDowns has displayed both its

popularity and effectiveness as a means of addressing the

unique needs of homeless veterans; and

Whereas StandDowns have offered a familiar and comforting

atmosphere to as many as 25,000 homeless veterans in

the past: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring),
2

•SCON 28 IS

1 SECTION 1. USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR THE D.C.

2 STANDDOWN ’95.

3 The National Coalition for Homeless Veterans shall

4 be permitted to host a public event on the Upper Senate

5 Park Portion of the Capitol Grounds during the period

6 beginning on October 23, 1995, and ending on October

7 30, 1995.

8 SEC. 2. CONDITIONS.

9 The event to be carried out under this resolution shall

10 be arranged not to interfere with the needs of Congress,

11 under conditions to be prescribed by the Architect of the

12 Capitol and the Capitol Hill Police Board, except that the

13 National Coalition for Homeless Veterans shall assume

14 full responsibility for all expenses and liabilities incident

15 to all activities associated with the event.

16 SEC. 3. STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT.

17 For the purposes of this resolution, the National Coa18 lition for Homeless Veterans is authorized to erect upon

19 the Capitol grounds, subject to the approval of the Archi20 tect of the Capitol, such stage, sound amplification de21 vices, and other related structures and equipment as may

22 be required for the event to be carried out under this

23 resolution.

24 SEC. 4. ADDITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS.

25 The Architect of the Capitol and the Capitol Hill Po26 lice Board are authorized to make such additional ar-
3

•SCON 28 IS

1 rangements as may be required to carry out the event

2 under this resolution.

3 SEC. 5. LIMITATION ON REPRESENTATIONS.

4 The National Coalition for Homeless Veterans shall

5 not represent, either directly or indirectly, that this resolu6 tion or any activity carried out under this resolution in

7 any way constitutes approval or endorsement by the Fed8 eral Government of the National Coalition for Homeless

9 Veterans or any services offered by the National Coalition

10 for Homeless Veterans.

Æ
EXHIBIT 21

Subsidiaries of the Registrant



|                                            |  |                                              |  |                     |     |  
|------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------- |  | ------------------- | --- | -
|Parent                                      |  | State or Other
Jurisdiction of Incorporation |  | PercentageOwnership |    
|Mayflower Bancorp, Inc.                     |  | Massachusetts                                |  |                     |     |  
|                                            |  |                                             
|Subsidiary                                  |  |                                              |  |                     |     |  
|Mayflower Co-operative Bank                 |  | Massachusetts                                |  |                     | 100 | %
|                                            |  |                                             
|Subsidiaries of Mayflower Co-operative Bank |  |                                              |  |                     |     |  
|MFLR Securities Corporation                 |  | Massachusetts                                |  |                     | 100 | %
|Mayflower Plaza, LLC                        |  | Massachusetts                                |  |                     | 100 | %
Exhibit 21.01
  Subsidiaries
    of Move, Inc.
  State or Jurisdictionof Incorporation orFull Name of Entity..

Other Legal Names

Legal Status of Entity

OrganizationHomeBuilder.com (Delaware), Inc.

None

Corporation

DelawareHomestore Europe Corporation

None

British Virgin Islands Co.

British Virgin IslandsHomestore International Limited (BVI)

None

British Virgin Islands Co.

British Virgin IslandsMove Sales, Inc.

Move Sales, Inc. dba Move

Corporation

Delaware Los Angeles / Ventura County MinnesotaMove Sales, Inc. dba Rentnet Los Angeles County, CAMove Sales, Inc. dba Homestore.com Los Angeles County, CAMove Sales, Inc. dba Homestore Apartments and Rentals Los Angeles County, CAMoving.com, Inc.

None

Corporation

DelawareInmoclick Online S.A.

None

Spanish Company

SpainNational New Homes Co., Inc.

None

Corporation

DelawareRealSelect, Inc.

RealSelect, Inc., dba
    REALTOR.com® 

    Los Angeles County, CA

Corporation

DelawareThe Enterprise of America, Ltd.

None

Corporation

WisconsinHomestore, Inc.

None

Corporation

DelawareTop Producer Systems Company

None

Nova Scotia, Canada ULL corporation

Nova ScotiaWelcome Wagon International Inc.

None

Corporation

New York
#### Kenneth Tyrone CHATMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director VDOC, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 17-7349

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: December 19, 2017

Decided: December 22, 2017

Kenneth Tyrone Chatman, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Stallard, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Tyrone Chatman seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as untimely filed and procedurally defaulted. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel, 529*U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct, 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 642 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack, 529*U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

*155We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Chatman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

EXHIBIT 10.16    
  


 
 

FORM OF COMMITMENT LETTER    
  













June 27,
2002 














Mr. Tony
Gioia

President and CEO

Tully's Coffee Corporation

3100 Airport Way South

Seattle, WA 98134 



Dear
Tony: 


        I
am aware that Tully's Coffee Corporation is presently seeking to raise capital (debt or equity) from one or more sources. Although I expect these efforts will be successful, I
recognize that there is no certainty of success. 


        This
letter will confirm my commitment and ability to provide financial support as may be required by the company, up to $xxx,xxx. At my election, this financial support may be made
through a direct investment in the company's stock, by direct loan to the company with a maturity no earlier than June 30, 2003, or by personal guarantee of a bank loan to the company with a
maturity no earlier than June 30, 2003. 


        This
commitment is only effective until the earlier of (a) June 30, 2003 or (b) the successful completion of the company's capital-raising efforts in an amount not
less than $3,000,000. 













Sincerely,



Signature

(address) 




















QuickLinks



EXHIBIT 10.16


FORM OF COMMITMENT LETTER
#### Louis FLORES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant-Appellee.

17-428-cv

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

February 28, 2018

FOR APPELLANT: Louis Flores, pro se, Jackson Heights, NY.

FOR APPELLEE: Rukhsanah L. Singh, Assistant United States Attorney (Varuni Nelson, Rachel G. Balaban, on the brief), for Richard Donoghue, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, NY.

PRESENT: BARRINGTON D. PARKER, PETER W. HALL, RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR., Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Appellant Louis Flores, proceeding *pro se,*appeals from a judgment in favor of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) in his lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). Flores alleged that DOJ failed to respond timely to his FOIA request and, when it did respond, failed to provide documents responsive to his request. The district court granted summary judgment to DOJ, concluding that DOJ’s declarations showed that its search was reasonably calculated to uncover responsive documents and that Flores had not made a showing of bad faith. This appeal follows. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

*108We review *de novo*a district court order granting summary judgment in a FOIA action. *Wilner v. Nat’l Sec. Agency,*592 F.3d 60, 69 (2d Cir. 2009). The defending agency has the burden of demonstrating that its search was adequate, and declarations showing that “the agency has conducted a thorough search” are sufficient to sustain this burden. *Carney v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice,*19 F.3d 807, 812 (2d Cir. 1994). Agency declarations are “accorded a presumption of good faith,” and a FOIA plaintiff seeking discovery “must make a showing of bad faith on the part of the agency sufficient to impugn the agency’s affidavits or declarations or provide some tangible evidence that ... summary judgment is otherwise inappropriate.” *Id.*(internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Here, the declarations submitted by DOJ established the adequacy of its search for responsive documents. Flores only speculates that DOJ acted in bad faith. The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of DOJ on Flores’s FOIA claim.

We have considered all of Flores’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court for substantially the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s thorough report and recommendation, which the district court adopted in full.