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

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1720 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1720

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the exclusion 
            for employer-provided dependent care assistance.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 26, 2015

Ms. Sinema (for herself, Mrs. Ellmers of North Carolina, Mrs. Brooks of 
      Indiana, Mr. Hanna, Mr. Gibson, Mr. Murphy of Florida, Mrs. 
Kirkpatrick, and Mrs. Bustos) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the exclusion 
            for employer-provided dependent care assistance.

    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 ``Child and Dependent Care FSA 
Enhancement Act''.

SEC. 2. INCREASE IN EXCLUSION FOR EMPLOYER-PROVIDED DEPENDENT CARE 
              ASSISTANCE.

    (a) In General.--Section 129(a)(2)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code 
of 1986 is amended by striking ``$5,000 ($2,500'' and inserting 
``$7,500 (half such dollar amount''.
    (b) Inflation Adjustment.--Section 129(a)(2) of such Code is 
amended by redesignating subparagraph (C) as subparagraph (D) and by 
inserting after subparagraph (B) the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(C) Inflation adjustment.--In the case of any 
                taxable year beginning in a calendar year after 2016, 
                the $7,500 amount in subparagraph (A) shall be 
                increased by an amount equal to--
                            ``(i) such dollar amount, multiplied by
                            ``(ii) the cost-of-living adjustment 
                        determined under section 1(f)(3) for the 
                        calendar year in which the taxable year begins, 
                        determined by substituting `calendar year 2015' 
                        for `calendar year 1992' in subparagraph (B) 
                        thereof.
                Any increase determined under the preceding sentence 
                shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $100.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2015.
                                 <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Raymond Accolla, Appellant.

The defendant failed to raise a timely challenge to the seating of an alternate juror on the ground that the juror’s relationship to the Trial Judge was likely to preclude her from rendering an impartial verdict *(see,*CPL 270.20 [1] [c]), when the fact of the juror’s position as a member of the Trial Judge’s reelection campaign committee was disclosed during the voir dire. Therefore, the defendant waived the objection *(see,*CPL 270.15 [4]; *People ex rel. Green v La Vallee,*55 AD2d 958), and failed to preserve the issue of appellate review *(see,*CPL 470.05 [2]).

On two separate occasions, once after informing both counsel who voiced no objection, and a second time, after informing the defendant, who said he did not object, the Trial Judge and his spouse dined out with the alternate juror and her spouse. It was improper for the Trial Judge to do so. Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 2, states that "A Judge Should Avoid Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety in All His *664Activities”. Although the juror’s position on the Trial Judge’s campaign committee created no conflict of interest on the part of the juror vis-á-vis the defendant *(cf. People v Shinkle,*51 NY2d 417), the people are entitled to protection against the appearance of impropriety *(see, People v Shinkle, supra).*The defendant, however, was not prejudiced by the appearance of impropriety as the record indicates that the alternate juror did not take part in the deliberations, that each time before the jury left the courtroom they were instructed not to discuss the case, and that the defendant’s guilt was overwhelmingly proven.

The record also indicates that in imposing sentences, the trial court impermissibly increased the defendant’s punishment solely for asserting his right to a trial *(see, People v Patterson,*106 AD2d 520). Based on our independent review of the proper factors to be considered *(People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80), we have reduced the sentences to that which complies with the acceptable objectives of sentencing. Under the sentences, as modified by this court, the defendant will be required to serve 4 to 12 years’ imprisonment.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Eiber, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

          Name of Subsidiary                                       Jurisdiction of Incorporation or
          -----------------                                        --------------------------------
                                                                             Organization
                                                                             ------------
<S>                                                                        <C>        
1.  LCC Design Services, L.L.C.                                                  Delaware
2.  LCC Europe Gmbh                                                              Germany
3.  Eurofon de France S.A.R.L.                                                    France
4.  LCC, United Kingdom, Ltd.                                                 United Kingdom

5.  LCC Development Company, L.L.C.                                              Delaware
6.  Microcell Management Inc.                                                    Delaware
7.  LCC do Brazil Ltda.                                                           Brazil

8.  Koll Telecommunications Services, L.L.C                                      Delaware

9.  LCC Asia Pacific LTD PTE                                                    Singapore

10.  LCC Europe AS                                                                Norway

11.  LCC International Holdings NL, Inc.                                         Delaware

12.  LCC International Holdings, Belgium, Inc.                                   Delaware
</TABLE>
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 99.2

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Communications & Power Industries
Holding Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending January
3, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Joel Littman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



/s/ Joel Littman


Joel Littman
Chief Financial Officer
February 12, 2003
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, ASADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connectionwith the report of Impac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, in thecapacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that to his knowledge:

 

(1)                       The Report fully complies withthe requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

(2)                       The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 
| /s/ Joseph R. Tomkinson |   |
|-------------------------|--------|
| Joseph R. Tomkinson     |
| Chief Executive Officer |
| May 10, 2006            |
|                    |
| /s/ Gretchen D. Verdugo |   |
| Gretchen D. Verdugo     |
| Chief Financial Officer |
| May 10, 2006            |

 

A signedoriginal of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided toImpac Mortgage Holdings, Inc. and will be retained by Impac Mortgage Holdings,Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

----
#### Connecticut Savings and Loan Association *v.*Wilbert Mitchell et al.

No appearance for the appellee (plaintiff).

*Mary V. McCarthy,*for the appellants (defendants Wilbert and Flora Mitchell).

Argued April 1

decided April 1, 1975

The plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in Hartford County is denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                         159,769
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,230,177
<ALLOWANCES>                                   471,204
<INVENTORY>                                  3,187,510
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,588,466
<PP&E>                                      14,604,910
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,923,259
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              16,624,374
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12,534,117
<BONDS>                                      3,448,032
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    15,769,018
<OTHER-SE>                                (15,126,793)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                16,624,374
<SALES>                                      4,499,918
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,499,918
<CGS>                                        3,496,369
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,118,105
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (172,392)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             237,745
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (179,909)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (179,909)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (179,909)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)


</TABLE>
#### Smith *v.*Sheridan.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Fifth Department,*

June 20, 1890.)

Master and Servant—Contract of Hiring—Evidence.

In an action for wages, where plaintiff relies on a contract of hiring at current wages, and defendant sets up a contract by which he was to give plaintiff such compensation as he should see fit, evidence as to any custom in defendant’s neighborhood with regard to hiring plaintiff was properly excluded.

Appeal from Seneca county court.

Action by Henry Smith against Norman Sheridan. A judgment entered on a verdict in the justice’s court in favor of plaintiff was affirmed by the county court, and defendant appeals.

Argued before Dwight, P. J., and Macomber and Corbett, JJ.

*John M. Barrett,*for appellant. *Richard G. Miller,*for respondent.

Macomber, J.

This action, which was brought to recover for wages under a contract of hiring, was tried before a justice of the peace and a jury, and resulted in favor of the plaintiff. The judgment entered upon such verdict having been affirmed by the county court, an appeal was taken by the defendant to this court. The proposition relied upon to sustain this appeal *366is that the justice erred in excluding evidence offered in behalf of the defendant. The plaintiff relied upon an affirmative contract of hiring at current wages. The defendant, under a general denial, set up a different contract, namely, that the plaintiff was to work for such compensation as the defendant saw fit to-make to him. This issue presented a question of fact for the jury, and their determination must be deemed to be conclusive upon the rights of the parties, unless the exclusion of the evidence above mentioned is error for which-the judgment should be reversed. Upon the question of *quantum meruit,*many witnesses were examined, a large majority of whom gave evidence which clearly sustained the sum awarded the plaintiff as compensation for his labor. The question propounded to the witness Lambert, namely, “What was the custom with regard to hiring the plaintiff in your neighborhood?” was clearly irrelevant to any issue presented by the pleadings or the proof. An answer to it would not have diminished the force of the evidence establishing the contract as claimed by the plaintiff, nor would it have supported the claim made by the defendant. Both parties relied upon a special contract, but differed as to the terms of such contract. Under these circumstances, what the plaintiff had received in the neighborhood, if such, indeed, was what was-designed to bring out by the question, when working without a special contract, was wholly irrelevant, and was properly excluded by the justice. The-judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs. All concur.
<PAGE>
                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO               Exhibit 99(b)
                              18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of The Dial Corporation (the"Company") on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Conrad
A. Conrad, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

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

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


/s/ Conrad A. Conrad
--------------------
Conrad A. Conrad
Chief Financial Officer
March 12, 2003
Document

Exhibit 10.2

Amendment to Employment Agreement
This Amendment to Employment Agreement (this “Amendment”) is made as of March 27, 2020 by and between Scientific Games Corporation, a Nevada corporation, (the “Company”) and Michael Winterscheidt (“Executive”).
WHEREAS, the Company and Executive entered into an Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated as of February 25, 2019 (the “Agreement”);
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual benefits to be derived herefrom and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 
1.Decrease in Base Salary.  The Agreement is hereby amended by adding the following sentence to the end of Section 3(a):
“Effective as of April 5, 2020, Executive’s base salary is decreased by twenty percent (20%), from four hundred and seventy-five thousand U.S. dollars ($475,000) per annum to three hundred and eighty U.S. dollars ($380,000) per annum. This decrease in base salary shall be effective until and through June 30, 2020.”
2. The Company and Executive further expressly agree that by signing this Amendment, Executive waives the right to assert, until and through June 30, 2020, that the decrease in base salary set forth in Section 1 of this Amendment constitutes “Good Reason,” as that phrase is defined in Section 4(e) of the Agreement.  For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Amendment amends the Agreement for any period of time after June 30, 2020.
3. Except as set forth in this Amendment, all terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect in accordance with their terms.  All references to the “Agreement” in the Agreement shall refer to the Agreement as amended by this Amendment. Any defined terms used in this Amendment and not defined herein shall have the meaning as set forth in the Agreement.
        4. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original and all of which shall constitute the same instrument.  Delivery of an executed counterpart of a signature page of this Amendment by electronic transmission shall be effective as delivery of a manually executed counterpart of this Amendment.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the parties hereto has duly executed this Amendment as of March 27, 2020.
SCIENTIFIC GAMES CORPORATION


By:     /s/ Shawn Williams 
Name: Shawn Williams 
Title: Senior Vice President, Chief Human Resources Officer
        
        /s/ Michael Winterscheidt 
Michael Winterscheidt
1
Page 1 – MOTION TO MODIFY TRANSPORT ORDER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

PETER SANTILLI,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:16-cr-00051-BR

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO 

MODIFY TRANSPORT ORDER

Defendant Peter Santilli, through his attorney Thomas Coan, moves the Court for 

an order modifying the Court’s prior order [Doc 334] requiring the U.S. Marshals to 

transport Mr. Santilli back to Oregon no later than April 25, 2016. Defendant Santilli needs 

additional time to meet with his attorney in the District of Nevada to prepare for a 

detention hearing. Based on this, defendant asks the Court to modify its transport order to 

require the U.S. Marshals transport defendant Peter Santilli back to the District of Oregon 

at a date to be determined but no later than May 17, 2016. The Government does not object 

to this request.

Dated this 21st day of April 2016.

Thomas K. Coan

Thomas K. Coan, OSB 89173

Attorney for Defendant

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 448 Filed 04/21/16 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.2**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     In connection with the Annual Report of Wilsons The Leather Experts Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-K for the fiscal year ended February 2, 2008, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stacy A. Kruse, Chief Financial Officer andTreasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:     1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and     2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.              /s/ STACY A. KRUSE   **Stacy A. Kruse**   **Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer**   Date: April 11, 2008
$25HY6XPPRQVLQD&LYLO$FWLRQ

81,7(' 67$7(6 ',675,&7 &2857

IRUWKH

BBBBBBBBBB'LVWULFWRIBBBBBBBBBB

























3ODLQWLIIV

Y &LYLO$FWLRQ1R

'HIHQGDQWV

6800216,1$&,9,/$&7,21

7R 'HIHQGDQW¶VQDPHDQGDGGUHVV

$ODZVXLWKDVEHHQILOHGDJDLQVW\RX

:LWKLQGD\VDIWHUVHUYLFHRIWKLVVXPPRQVRQ\RXQRWFRXQWLQJWKHGD\\RXUHFHLYHGLW2RUGD\VLI\RX

DUHWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVRUD8QLWHG6WDWHVDJHQF\RUDQRIILFHURUHPSOR\HHRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVGHVFULEHGLQ)HG5&LY

3DRU2\RXPXVWVHUYHRQWKHSODLQWLIIDQDQVZHUWRWKHDWWDFKHGFRPSODLQWRUDPRWLRQXQGHU5XOHRI

WKH)HGHUDO5XOHVRI&LYLO3URFHGXUH7KHDQVZHURUPRWLRQPXVWEHVHUYHGRQWKHSODLQWLIIRUSODLQWLII¶VDWWRUQH\

ZKRVHQDPHDQGDGGUHVVDUH

,I\RXIDLOWRUHVSRQGMXGJPHQWE\GHIDXOWZLOOEHHQWHUHGDJDLQVW\RXIRUWKHUHOLHIGHPDQGHGLQWKHFRPSODLQW

<RXDOVRPXVWILOH\RXUDQVZHURUPRWLRQZLWKWKHFRXUW

&/(5.2)&2857

'DWH

6LJQDWXUHRI&OHUNRU'HSXW\&OHUN

'LVWULFW RI 2UHJRQ

(17(57$,10(17 5$',2 1(7:25. //& DQ

2UHJRQ OLPLWHG OLDELOLW\ FRPSDQ\ HW DO

7,0( ,1& D 'HODZDUH FRUSRUDWLRQ

7,0( ,1& E\ DQG WKURXJK LWV 5HJLVWHUHG $JHQW

7KH &RUSRUDWLRQ 7UXVW &RPSDQ\

&RUSRUDWLRQ 7UXVW &HQWHU

:LOPLQJWRQ '( 

&RQGH 7 &R[

6WXDUW . &RKHQ

/DQG\H %HQQHWW %OXPVWHLQ //3

 6: WK $YHQXH 6XLWH 

3RUWODQG 25 



3:15-cv-01916-PK

10/09/2015 By: s/C. Brost, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:15-cv-01916-PK Document 4 Filed 10/09/15 Page 1 of 2
$25HY6XPPRQVLQD&LYLO$FWLRQ3DJH

&LYLO$FWLRQ1R

3522)2)6(59,&(

7KLVVHFWLRQVKRXOGQRWEHILOHGZLWKWKHFRXUWXQOHVVUHTXLUHGE\)HG5&LY3O

7KLVVXPPRQVIRUQDPHRILQGLYLGXDODQGWLWOHLIDQ\

ZDVUHFHLYHGE\PHRQ GDWH 

u ,SHUVRQDOO\VHUYHGWKHVXPPRQVRQWKHLQGLYLGXDODWSODFH

RQ GDWH RU

u ,OHIWWKHVXPPRQVDWWKHLQGLYLGXDO¶VUHVLGHQFHRUXVXDOSODFHRIDERGHZLWKQDPH

DSHUVRQRIVXLWDEOHDJHDQGGLVFUHWLRQZKRUHVLGHVWKHUH

RQ GDWH DQGPDLOHGDFRS\WRWKHLQGLYLGXDO¶VODVWNQRZQDGGUHVVRU

u ,VHUYHGWKHVXPPRQVRQQDPHRILQGLYLGXDO ZKRLV

GHVLJQDWHGE\ODZWRDFFHSWVHUYLFHRISURFHVVRQEHKDOIRIQDPHRIRUJDQL]DWLRQ

RQ GDWH RU

u ,UHWXUQHGWKHVXPPRQVXQH[HFXWHGEHFDXVH RU

u 2WKHU VSHFLI\



0\IHHVDUH IRUWUDYHODQG IRUVHUYLFHVIRUDWRWDORI 

,GHFODUHXQGHUSHQDOW\RISHUMXU\WKDWWKLVLQIRUPDWLRQLVWUXH

'DWH

6HUYHU¶VVLJQDWXUH

3ULQWHGQDPHDQGWLWOH

6HUYHU¶VDGGUHVV

$GGLWLRQDOLQIRUPDWLRQUHJDUGLQJDWWHPSWHGVHUYLFHHWF



Case 3:15-cv-01916-PK Document 4 Filed 10/09/15 Page 2 of 2