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

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 895 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 895

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an exemption from 
 gross income for mandatory restitution or civil damages as recompense 
                      for trafficking in persons.

    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 ``Human Trafficking Survivor Tax 
Relief Act''.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTING FROM FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION RESTITUTION AND CIVIL 
              DAMAGES AWARDED UNDER SECTIONS 1593 AND 1595 OF TITLE 18, 
              UNITED STATES CODE.

    (a) In General.--Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by section 9501(b)(4) of the 
American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law 117-2), is amended by 
inserting before section 140 the following new section:

``SEC. 139J. CERTAIN AMOUNT RECEIVED AS RESTITUTION OR CIVIL DAMAGES AS 
              RECOMPENSE FOR TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS.

    ``(a) Exclusion From Gross Income.--Gross income shall not include 
any civil damages, restitution, or other monetary award (including 
compensatory or statutory damages and restitution imposed in a criminal 
matter) awarded--
            ``(1) pursuant to an order of restitution under section 
        1593 of title 18, United States Code, or
            ``(2) in an action under section 1595 of title 18, United 
        States Code.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for part III of 
subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is 
amended by inserting before the item relating to section 140 the 
following new item:

``Sec. 139J. Certain amount received as restitution or civil damages as 
                            recompense for trafficking in persons.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.

            Passed the Senate April 27, 2022.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
117th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                 S. 895

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide an exemption from 
 gross income for mandatory restitution or civil damages as recompense 
                      for trafficking in persons.
```
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Solely for the purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Manitex International, Inc. (the Company), hereby certify that, to the best of our knowledge, the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,
2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of the Company.



|       |  |                                                             
|------ |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ David J. Langevin                                       
|Name:  |  | David J. Langevin                                           
|Title: |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer                        
|       |  | (Principal Executive Officer of Manitex
International, Inc.)

Dated: May 13, 2010



|       |  |                                                                            
|------ |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ David H. Gransee                                                       
|Name:  |  | David H. Gransee                                                           
|Title: |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer                                 
|       |  | (Principal Financial and Accounting
Officer of Manitex International, Inc.)

Dated: May 13, 2010



45
James Clayton NELSON v. STATE

CR-16-1179

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

December 5, 2017

Reversed and remanded.
```

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 10 (Thursday, January 16, 2025)]
[Notices]
[Page 4810]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00906]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: January 16, 2025.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
January 8, 2025, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 1263 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-1082, K2025-1081.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2025-00906 Filed 1-15-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
<Page>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.2

                                    AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                                VOTING AGREEMENT

     This Amendment is made as of the 20th day of May, 2003 by and among
AutoNation, Inc. ("AN"), the Flynn Group, Dean L. Buntrock ("Buntrock"), and PMM
LKQ Investment Limited Partnership and PMM LKQ Investment Limited Partnership II
(collectively, "PMM").

                                    RECITALS

     The parties hereto (AN as successor in interest of Republic Industries,
Inc. and PMM as the investment vehicle of Paul M. Montrone) are parties to the
Voting Agreement dated as of June 19, 1998 (a copy of which is attached hereto
as Exhibit A) (the "Voting Agreement"). The parties desire to amend the Voting
Agreement on the terms and subject to the conditions set forth herein. Each
capitalized term used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the same
meaning as in the Stockholders Agreement.

                                    COVENANTS

     1. The second sentence of Section 1 of the Voting Agreement shall be
amended to read as follows: As long as any of RII, the Flynn Group, Buntrock or
PMM (or its or his Affiliates) beneficially owns any capital stock of the
Company (a "Stockholder"), each party hereto agrees to vote all of its shares of
capital stock of the Company in favor of the election of one designee of each
Stockholder to the Board of Directors of the Company.

     2. All other terms and conditions shall remain unchanged and in full force
and effect.

<Page>

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement or
caused this Agreement to be executed as of the day and year first above written.

AUTONATION, INC.


By: /s/ Thomas W. Hawkins


/s/ Donald F. Flynn
Donald F. Flynn, on behalf of himself and on
   behalf of each member of the Flynn Group


/s/ Dean L. Buntrock
Dean L. Buntrock


/s/ Paul M. Meister
Paul M. Meister, on behalf of PMM
Ulysses Lee WILLIAMS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1034

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 18, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Reagan M. PRATT, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4411

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 01, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

Pursuant to the notice of voluntary dismissal filed herein, this appeal is dismissed.
# C_2017161EN.01001501.xml

| 22.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/15

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) (United Kingdom) made on 24 March 2017 — Swedish Match AB v Secretary of State for Health

(Case C-151/17)

(2017/C 161/19)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Swedish Match AB

Applicant:

Defendant: Secretary of State for Health

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

Are Articles 1(c) and 17 of Directive 2014/40/EU (1) invalid by reason of:

1

| i. | breach of the EU general principle of non-discrimination; |
| --- | --- |

i.

breach of the EU general principle of non-discrimination;

| ii. | breach of the EU general principle of proportionality; |
| --- | --- |

ii.

breach of the EU general principle of proportionality;

| iii. | breach of Article 5(3) TEU and the EU principle of subsidiarity; |
| --- | --- |

iii.

breach of Article 5(3) TEU and the EU principle of subsidiarity;

| iv. | breach of Article 296(2) of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’); |
| --- | --- |

iv.

breach of Article 296(2) of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (‘TFEU’);

| v. | breach of Articles 34 and 35 TFEU; and |
| --- | --- |

v.

breach of Articles 34 and 35 TFEU; and

| vi. | breach of Articles 1, 7 and 35 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. |
| --- | --- |

vi.

breach of Articles 1, 7 and 35 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

---

(1)  Directive 2014/40/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 3 April 2014 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products and repealing Directive 2001/37/EC (OJ 2014, L 127, p. 1).

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

ISAAC JESUOROBO, a/k/a §

Jesuorobo Isaac Rusher, a/k/a §

Isaac Rusher Jesuorobo §

(# A 75275832), §

 § 

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:05-CV-329-Y

 §

STATE OF TEXAS, et al. § 

 ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

In this action brought by petitioner Isaac Jesuorobo for a

writ of error coram nobis under 28 U.S.C. § 1651, the Court has

made an independent review of the following matters in the abovestyled and numbered cause:

1. The pleadings and record;

2. The proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States magistrate judge filed on

June 27, 2005; and

3. The petitioner's written objections to the proposed

findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United

States magistrate judge filed on July 14, 2005.

The Court, after de novo review, concludes that Jesuorobo’s

objections must be overruled, that the motion for stay of deportation should be denied, and that the petition for writ of error

coram nobis under 28 U.S.C. § 1651 should be dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction, for the reasons stated in the magistrate judge's

findings and conclusions. 

It is therefore ORDERED that the findings, conclusions, and

recommendation of the magistrate judge should be, and are hereby,

ADOPTED.

 It is further ORDERED that the motion for stay of deportation

[docket no. 5] be, and is hereby, DENIED. 

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00329-Y Document 11 Filed 07/15/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 124
2

It is further ORDERED that Jesuorobo’s May 20, 2005, petition

for writ of error coram nobis be, and is hereby, DISMISSED for lack

of jurisdiction.

SIGNED July 15, 2005.

 

 Case 4:05-cv-00329-Y Document 11 Filed 07/15/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 125
```

[Congressional Bills 119th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 26 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 26

   To exclude locality adjustments from average pay for purposes of 
     computing the amount of retirement annuities of new employees.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 7, 2025

  Mr. Cassidy introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To exclude locality adjustments from average pay for purposes of 
     computing the amount of retirement annuities of new employees.

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

SECTION 1. EXCLUSION OF LOCALITY ADJUSTMENTS FROM RETIREMENT ANNUITIES.

    Section 8401 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (3), by inserting ``, which for a revised 
        average pay employee shall exclude any locality-based 
        comparability payments under section 5304 or 5304a,'' after 
        ``rates of basic pay'';
            (2) in paragraph (38)(B), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (3) in paragraph (39), by striking the period at the end 
        and inserting ``; and''; and
            (4) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(40) the term `revised average pay employee' means an 
        individual who--
                    ``(A) on the date of enactment of this paragraph--
                            ``(i) is not an employee or Member covered 
                        under this chapter;
                            ``(ii) is not performing civilian service 
                        which is creditable service under section 8411; 
                        and
                            ``(iii) has not performed any civilian 
                        service which is creditable service under 
                        section 8411; and
                    ``(B) after the date of enactment of this 
                paragraph, becomes employed as an employee or becomes a 
                Member covered under this chapter performing service 
                which is creditable service under section 8411.''.
                                 <all>
```
Christina Anamaria ALEXANDER, Appellant, v. Patricia D. ALEXANDER and Sandra J. Scott-Mooney, Appellees.

Case No. 2D18-459

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 27, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
                                   Exhibit 12

                         Continental Global Group, Inc.

                Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

                        (In thousands, except for ratios)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                          Years ended December 31
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    1998            1997            1996        1995        1994

<S>                                              <C>             <C>             <C>          <C>           <C>
Computation of Earnings:
Income before extraordinary item and foreign
   income taxes                                   $   1,302       $   8,181       $   8,940    $ 11,785      $ 3,616
Add:
   Interest expense                                  14,658 (1)      12,308 (2)       2,889       2,506        1,493
   Amortization of deferred financing costs               -               -              27          16            8
   Portion of rent expense representative of
     an interest factor                                 800             523             407         455          310
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------
Earnings                                           $ 16,760        $ 21,012        $ 12,263    $ 14,762      $ 5,427
                                                   =================================================================
Computation of Fixed Charges:
   Interest expense                                $ 14,658        $ 12,308       $   2,889   $   2,506      $ 1,493
   Amortization of deferred financing costs               -               -              27          16            8
   Portion of rent expense representative of
     an interest factor                                 800             523             407         455          310
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed Charges                                      $ 15,458        $ 12,831       $   3,323   $   2,977      $ 1,811
                                                   =================================================================
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                     1.08            1.64            3.69        4.96         3.00
                                                   =================================================================
</TABLE>

(1)      Amortization of deferred financing costs of $520 is included in 1998
         interest expense.

(2)      Amortization of deferred financing costs of $390 is included in 1997
         interest expense.
Thomas ANTINARELLI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-3377

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed April 26, 2019

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Darnelle P. Lawshe, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison L. Morris, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

COHEN, J.

Thomas Antinarelli appeals the judgment and sentence imposed following a violation of probation hearing. We affirm.

In April 1999, Antinarelli was sentenced as a habitual felony offender to a split sentence of eighteen years in the Department of Corrections followed by twelve years' probation. During his probationary period, he was arrested on charges of sexual battery, false imprisonment, and violating his probation. An officer subsequently filed violation of probation affidavits alleging two violations of condition 5 based on the charges of sexual battery and false imprisonment, and a violation of condition 6 based on association with a person engaged in criminal activity.1

*1003The court held Antinarelli's violation of probation hearing in conjunction with his criminal trial. Although the jury acquitted Antinarelli on the sexual battery and false imprisonment charges, the trial court, utilizing the lower burden of proof, found that the State established the allegations in the violation of probation affidavits by a preponderance of the evidence. *See**Hill v. State*, 890 So.2d 485, 487 n.1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) ("An acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude a judge from finding a probation violation for the same conduct because the burdens [sic] of proof in a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas in a probation violation case, it is by a preponderance of the evidence." (citing *Morris v. State*, 727 So.2d 975 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) ) ).

The court's orders found Antinarelli "in violation of probation conditions (5(X3), 6)." Based on transcripts of the trial and sentencing hearing, the court found that Antinarelli violated his probation by committing two sexual offenses, falsely imprisoning the victim, and associating with a person engaged in criminal behavior. However, the portions of the orders stating "(5(X3)" improperly added an uncharged act, as Antinarelli was charged only with two violations of condition 5. *E.g.*, *Manis v. State*, 30 So.3d 586, 587 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010) (explaining that a trial court cannot revoke probation based on an act not charged within the violation of probation affidavit (citations omitted) ). We view this only as a scrivener's error based on the record before us. *E.g.*, *St. Denis v. State*, 128 So.3d 950 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013) (affirming order but remanding for correction of scrivener's error where transcript of hearing clearly illustrated trial court's intent). Thus, we affirm the orders of violation of probation but remand for correction of the orders consistent with this opinion.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED for correction of scrivener's errors.

EVANDER, C.J. and EISNAUGLE, J., concur.

1

The victim in this case was a prostitute.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

Exhibit 21

                            Kendle International Inc.
                                 Subsidiary List

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Subsidiary                                         Jurisdiction of Organization
----------                                         ----------------------------
<S>                                                <C>
Kendle U.K. Inc.                                   Ohio

Kendle GmbH                                        Germany

Kendle Vermogensverwaltungs GmbH                   Germany

Kendle International B.V.                          The Netherlands

U-Gene Clinical Research B.V.                      The Netherlands

U-Gene Research Biotechnology B.V.                 The Netherlands

Kendle International Holdings Limited              United Kingdom

Kendle Branches Limited                            United Kingdom

Kendle International Limited                       United Kingdom

Kendle U.K. Limited                                United Kingdom

Kendle CTA Limited                                 United Kingdom

Kendle International SARL                          France

Kendle R&D Pty Limited                             Australia

Kendle R&D Unit Trust                              Australia

ACER/EXCEL INC.                                    New Jersey

AAC Consulting Group, Inc.                         Maryland

Kendle Canada Inc.                                 Canada

Kendle International CPU LLC                       Ohio

Kendle Americas Holding Inc.                       Ohio

Kendle Americas Investment Inc.                    Ohio

Kendle Americas Management Inc.                    Ohio

Kendle International Holdings Pty Limited          Australia

Kendle Pty Limited                                 Australia

Kendle Unit Trust                                  Australia

Kendle International, S.A. de C.V.                 Mexico

Kendle Servicios, S.A. de C.V.                     Mexico

Kendle India Private Limited                       India

Kendle South Africa (Proprietary) Limited          South Africa

Kendle Peru S.R.L                                  Peru
</TABLE>
Willie Lee SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D19-0511

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 8, 2019

FLORIDA DECISIONS WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINIONS

Dismissed.