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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5213 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5213

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to simplify the treatment of 
 seasonal positions for purposes of the employer shared responsibility 
                              requirement.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 28, 2014

  Mr. Renacci (for himself, Mr. Schrader, Ms. Jenkins, and Mr. Costa) 
 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 simplify the treatment of 
 seasonal positions for purposes of the employer shared responsibility 
                              requirement.

    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 ``Simplifying Technical Aspects 
Regarding Seasonality Act of 2014'' or the ``STARS Act''.

SEC. 2. SIMPLIFICATION OF SEASONAL RULES FOR PURPOSES OF EMPLOYER 
              SHARED RESPONSIBILITY REQUIREMENT.

    (a) Full-Time Employee Exception for Determining Assessable 
Payment.--
            (1) In general.--Paragraph (4) of section 4980H(c) of such 
        Code is amended by redesignating subparagraph (B) as 
        subparagraph (C) and by inserting after subparagraph (A) the 
        following new subparagraph:
                    ``(B) Exception for seasonal employees.--Such term 
                shall not include any seasonal employee.''.
            (2) Seasonal employee defined.--Subsection (c) of section 
        4980H of such Code is amended by redesignating paragraphs (5), 
        (6), and (7) as paragraphs (6), (7), and (8), respectively and 
        by inserting after paragraph (4) the following new paragraph:
            ``(5) Seasonal employee.--The term `seasonal employee' 
        means an employee who is employed in a position for which the 
        customary annual employment is not more than 6 months and which 
        requires performing labor or services which are ordinarily 
        performed at certain seasons or periods of the year.''.
    (b) Applicable Large Employer Determination Exception.--
Subparagraph (B) of section 4980H(c)(2) of such Code is amended to read 
as follows:
                    ``(B) Exception for seasonal employees.--For 
                purposes of subparagraph (A), seasonal employees shall 
                not be taken into account.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take 
effect as if included in section 1513 of the Patient Protection and 
Affordable Care Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### ADDIE O. WHITE, Administratrix of the Estate of CARL J. WHITE, v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

(Filed 10 April, 1940.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Bobbitt, J.,*at October Term, 1939, of OlevelaNd.

Affirmed.

Civil action to recover damages for wrongful death.

On 9 August, 1937, deceased was in an intoxicated condition to the extent that he would stagger when he walked. He left Lilly Mill about 6 :15 p.m. and went to and along the railroad track toward the railroad trestle. About thirty or forty minutes later his body was found at the foot of the railroad embankment near the trestle. His body was bloody and muddy; his jugular vein was bursted; he had chest injuries and six or eight ribs were broken, one of which punctured his heart, and his clothing was torn.

At the conclusion of all the evidence, on motion of the defendant, the action was dismissed by judgment of nonsuit. Plaintiff excepted and appealed.

*Gerald B. Goforth, Joseph M. Wright, and Horace Kennedy for plaintiff, appellant.*

*W. T. Joyner, D. Z. Newton, and B. G. Howison, Jr., for defendant, appellee.*

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff has failed to bring her ease within the decisions in *Henderson v. R. R.,*159 N. C., 581, and *George v. R. R.,*215 N. C., 773, 3 S. E. (2d), 286. *Harrison v. R. R.,*204 N. C., 718, 169 S. E., 637, and cases there cited, and *Cummings v. R. R., ante,*127, are controlling.

The judgment below is

Affirmed.
#### STATE v. WM. M. BROWN, CAPITAL AMUSEMENT COMPANY and H. E. LAING.

(Filed 20 November, 1940.)

Appeal by defendant H. E. Laing from *Parker, J.,*at September Criminal Term, 1940, of Wake.

Affirmed.

*481
      *Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-Qeneral Bruton a?id Patton for the State.*

*Aaron Goldberg and W. Brantley Womble for defendant.*

Clarkson, J.

This case is governed by the opinion of *S. v. Abbott, ante,*470.

For the reasons given in that opinion, the judgment of the court below in this case is

Affirmed.
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3362 

To require the Healthy People Maternal, Infant, and Child Health Workgroup 

and the Maternal Health Working Group to establish a formal coordinated approach for monitoring maternal health efforts across the Department of Health and Human Services. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 9, 2021 

Mr. WARNOCK (for himself and Mr. RUBIO) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To require the Healthy People Maternal, Infant, and Child 

Health Workgroup and the Maternal Health Working 

Group to establish a formal coordinated approach for 

monitoring maternal health efforts across the Department of Health and Human Services. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Improving Coordina5 tion for Healthy Moms Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3362 IS

1 SEC. 2. COORDINATED MATERNAL HEALTH EFFORTS. 

2 The Healthy People Maternal, Infant, and Child 

3 Health Workgroup and the Maternal Health Working 

4 Group shall provide recommendations to the Secretary of 

5 Health and Human Services (referred to in this section 

6 as the ‘‘Secretary’’) for establishing a formal coordinated 

7 approach for monitoring maternal health efforts across the 

8 Department of Health and Human Services, including in 

9 rural and underserved areas, and the Secretary, not later 

10 than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, shall 

11 establish such an approach. Such approach may include 

12 establishing a process for exchanging information and dis13 cussing relevant program efforts and outcomes across the 

14 agency, during regular standing meetings, on a routine 

15 basis. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                    CONSENT OF DELOITTE & TOUCHE EXPERTA LTD



                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos.
33-72130, 33-58362, 333-3846 and 333-35215 of Genta Incorporated on Form S-3 and
Registration Statement Nos. 33-85887, 333-94181 and 333-94185 of Genta
Incorporated on Form S-8 of our report dated April 15, 1999, with respect to the
financial statements of Genta Jago Technologies B.V., appearing in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Genta Incorporated for the year ended December 31, 1998
(which report expressed an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory
paragraph which indicates that there are matters that raise substantial doubt
about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern).



                                                  DELOITTE & TOUCHE EXPERTA LTD.

Basel, Switzerland
March 27, 2000
#### RODOLPH SIMMONS and wife, BONNIE DELL SIMMONS v. PAUL WILLIAMS and wife, GLADIE WILLIAMS.

(Filed 14 October, 1959.)

1. Arbitration and Award § 7—

An award of an arbitrator made in conformity with and pursuant to tbe agreement of tbe parties is conclusive and binding in tbe absence of fraud or mutual mistake.

Higgins, J., not sitting.

Appeal by defendants from *Mintz, J.,*at April, 1959 Term, of Duplin.

Civil action commenced by plaintiffs in Superior Court of Duplin County, North Carolina, for the purpose of restraining defendants from entering or trespassing upon lands alleged to bé owned by plaintiffs, and to recover damages for wrongful destruction of plaintiffs’ wire fence. The defendants, answering, denied the material allegations of plaintiffs’ complaint.

And the record shows-that thereafter the parties and their’respective attorneys of record entered into agreement, in writing and by consent, wherein both parties, desiring that the matters in controversy be terminated and their differences and contentions be. settled, agreed that one J. W. Waters, in whose judgement they had utmost confidence, should go upon the lands in controversy and establish the boundary between the lands of the parties and determine, the amount of damages to be assessed against either party as. hi his judgment he deemed just and proper, — both parties agreeing to be bound by the determination of the said J. W. Waters, and to truly execute judgment, by consent, embodying such determination. . . ■ • ■

It appeárs of record that pursuant thereto J. W. ';ers made determination and report, to which defendants filed, objection. • But upon hearing before Judge of Superior Court, attorney for defendants stated in open court that defendants did not desire to attack the report of the said J. W. Waters on either the grounds of fraud, or of mutual mistake, and did not -have, or intend to offer,- evidence of either.

And upon facts found the Judge presiding concluded -that the motion -and objection of defendants be denied and dismissed; ■ and that the Said-report of J. W. Waters be in all respects approved,'confirmed and declared .to'-be valid and enforceable as between the parties t-here^ to, :ánd-thát‘ it- bé certified by the Clerk of Superior Court óf Duplin County to the Register of Deeds of Duplin County and enrolled-,■ re*84corded, and indexed in the Registry in the manner provided by law. Defendants except thereto and appeal to Supreme Court, and assign error.

*Beasley & Stevens for plaintiffs, appellees.*

*William F. Simpson for defendants, appellants.*

Per Curiam:

In the light of the factual situation hereinbefore set forth it appears that the parties have by consent agreement charted the course and, in the absence of fraud or mutual mistake, the award made pursuant to the agreement of the parties is final and binding.

Hence the judgment below is

Affirmed.

HiggiNS, J., not sitting.
IN THE

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

OF TEXAS

JESUS GONZALES § CASE NO. _______________

§

§

VS. § On Appeal From Harris County

§ Cause No. 1351489

§ 184th District Court

THE STATE OF TEXAS §

APPELLANT ’S MOTION

TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE NOTICE OF APPEAL

Appellant, Jesus Gonzales, moves for an extension of time to file notice of

appe al , under T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 10.5(b) and T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.3.

I. TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS

On September 1, 2015

, Mr. Gonzales was sentenced to 15 years in prison after

the court granted a motion to adjudicate guilt. On October 5, 2015, while in custody,

he mailed a request for a lawyer to be appointed for an appeal. Counsel was appointed

on October 15, 2015.

II. PROCEEDINGS IN THIS COURT

The notice of appeal was due October 1, 2015. Mr. Gonzales ’ retained counsel

did not file a notice of appeal, however, and apparently did not notify him that he did

not file it

. Appellate counsel is filing this motion within the 15 days permitted by Rule

26.3, on the grounds that Mr. Gonzales had no way to know that his trial counsel did

not file a notice of appeal on his behalf or to know that a notice needed to be filed at ACCEPTED

00000

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

10/16/2015 10:14:59 AM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK2

all. Counsel is filing motion this within a day of being appointed, in order to preserve

Mr. Gonzales’ right to an ap peal, if he has such right. Because the court’s file already

had been sent to storage, counsel could not determine before the deadline whether or

not Mr. Gonzales has a right to appeal. The clerk has requested the file, but counsel

cannot wait to review it before filing this motion, because today is the last day for filing

the notice of appeal.

II I

.

In the exercise of due diligence, counsel was unable to file a timely notice of

appeal because she was appointed after the deadline for filing it

. This motion is not filed

for purposes of delay, but so that justice may be done.

PRAYER

Appellant respectfully requests that this motion be granted and that the Court

permit an extension of time until October 16

, 2015 to fil e a notice of appeal

.

Respectfully submitted,

ALEXANDER BUNIN

Chief Public Defender

Harris County Texas

/s/ Cheri Duncan

___________________

___________ CHERI DUNCAN

Assistant Public Defender

Harris County Texas

State Bar No. 06210500

1201 Franklin, 13 th Floor

Houston Texas 770023 (713) 368

- 0016

(713) 368

- 9278 (Fax)

cheri.duncan@pdo.hctx.net

Attorney for Appellant,

JESUS GONZALES

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of Appellant’s Motion to Extend Time to File Notice of

Appeal was served electronically on the A ppellate Division of the H arris County

District Attorney’s Office , 1201 Franklin St, 6 th Floor, Houston, TX on October 1 6

,

2015

.

/s/ Cheri Duncan

___ _________________________________ CHERI DUNCAN
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 3273 

To take certain land in the State of California into trust for the benefit 

of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 29, 2021 

Mr. PADILLA (for himself and Mrs. FEINSTEIN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

A BILL 

To take certain land in the State of California into trust 

for the benefit of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla 

Indians, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Agua Caliente Land 

5 Exchange Fee to Trust Confirmation Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LAND TO BE TAKEN INTO TRUST FOR THE BENEFIT 

7 OF THE AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA 

8 INDIANS. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—The approximately 2,560 acres of 

10 land owned by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3273 IS

1 generally depicted as ‘‘Lands to be Taken into Trust’’ on 

2 the map entitled ‘‘Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians 

3 Land to be Taken into Trust’’ and dated November 17, 

4 2021, is hereby taken into trust by the United States for 

5 the benefit of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. 

6 (b) ADMINISTRATION.—Land taken into trust by 

7 subsection (a) shall be— 

8 (1) part of the reservation of the Agua Caliente 

9 Band of Cahuilla Indians; and 

10 (2) administered in accordance with the laws 

11 and regulations generally applicable to property held 

12 in trust by the United States for the benefit of an 

13 Indian Tribe. 

14 (c) GAMING PROHIBITED.—Land taken into trust by 

15 subsection (a) shall not be eligible for gaming under the 

16 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### HELEN T. WADE v. H. J. WADE.

(Filed 6 April, 1960.)

1. Husband and Wife § 10—

An unsigned deed of separation has no legal effect.

2. Pleadings § 34—

Allegations and an exhibit which the pleader could not support by or offer in evidence at the trial should be stricken on motion.

3. Divorce and Alimony § 18—

The allowance of alimony *pendente lite*rests in the discretion of the trial court and his order will not be disturbed in the absence of some error of law.

CERTIORARI to review two orders of *Frizzelle, J.,*refusing to strike parts of the complaint and awarding alimony *pendente lite.*

This civil action was instituted by the plaintiff for alimony without divorce, for allowance *pendente lite,*and for counsel fees. In paragraph 10 of her complaint she alleged the defendant agreed to execute a deed of separation “and cause the same to be reduced to writing, . . . the said defendant wrongfully failed and refused to execute the same.” A copy of the unexecuted instrument was attached to and made a part of paragraph 10. Before answer, the defendant moved to strike paragraph 10, the attached exhibit, and all reference to the exhibit made in paragraph 11 of the complaint. On December 4, 1959, Judge Frizzelle made an order denying the motion. On December 14, 1959, Judge Frizzelle entered an order providing for alimony payments *pendente lite.*Our writ to the Superior Court of Lenoir County brought both orders here for review.

*Jones, Reed & Griffin for plaintiff, appellee.*

*White & Aycock, C. E. Gerrans for defendant, appellant.*

HiggiNS, J.

From the allegations of the complaint it appears that during negotiations for a settlement prior to the institution of the suit the defendant had a deed of separation prepared. Both parties admit it was never signed by either. Therefore, it has remained a blank paper without legal effect. In the case of *Pearce v. Pearce,*226 N.C. 307, 37 S.E. 2d 904, this Court had before it a deed of separation which had been signed, though “not executed in the manner required by G.S. 52-12 and 52-13.” This Court said: “It must be noted at the threshold of this case that the asserted written agreement of separation is void *ah initio.”*(citing authority) “In law it does not exist.”

*331The plaintiff on the trial could not offer the writing in evidence. The motion to strike should have been allowed. *Daniel v. Gardner,*240 N.C. 249, 81 S.E. 2d 660. The motion to strike other parts of the complaint was properly denied. The order is modified by striking paragraph 10 (including Exhibit A) and all reference to the exhibit contained in paragraph 11. Otherwise, the order of December 4, 1959, is approved.

The order of December 14, 1959, providing for payments of alimony pending further hearing, related to matters within the sound discretion of the trial court, in which no error of law appears. *Hall v. Hall,*250 N.C. 275, 108 S.E. 2d 487; *Cunningham v. Cunningham,*234 N.C. 1, 65 S.E. 2d 375.

Modified and affirmed.
Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 75th 

Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

-2.00% -4.34% 1.02% 2.07% -0.98% -2.27%

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Payroll Taxes (including maximum taxable)

Proposed Provision: Increase the payroll tax rate (currently 12.4 percent) to 12.6 percent in 2012, 12.9 

percent in 2020, 13.3 in percent in 2030, 13.8 percent in 2040, 14.4 percent in 2060, and 14.5 percent in 

2075.

Present Law Change From Present Law in Results with this provision

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Percent

Year

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

Cost rates with this provision

Income rates under present law

Income rates with this provision

Cost rates under present law

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Percent

Year

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

Present law With this provision

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2009 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actuary, Social Security

January 28, 2010

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Percent

Year

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

Cost rates with this provision

Income rates under present law

Income rates with this provision

Cost rates under present law

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Percent

Year

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

(assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

Present law With this provision
Exhibit 99.2



Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 906), the undersigned officer of Cooperative Computing, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify that, to the best of such officers knowledge (i) the Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii) the information contained in the Form
10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Cooperative Computing, Inc. and will be retained by Cooperative
Computing, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



By:



|/s/ GREG PETERSEN                                             |  | 05/14/03
|------------------------------------------------------------- |  | --------
|Greg Petersen Senior Vice President, Finance & Administration |  | Date
#### JOHN RICHARD SOLOKY v. MARY HOYLE COOKE and C. T. COOKE.

(Filed 21 September, 1960.)

Appeal by defendants-from *Morris, J.,*at. April Term, 1960, of WASHINGTON. -

Civil action to recover property damage resulting from actionable negligence -of defendants in a collision between automobile of plaintiff and truck of defendants. The case was submitted to the jury and the jury found for its verdict that plaintiff’s automobile was damaged by the negligence of the defendants as alleged in the complaint; that plaintiff did not by his own negligence contribute to his injury and damage; and that plaintiff is entitled to recover of defendants $2,295.00.

Defendants appeal therefrom to Supreme Court, and assign error.

*Mayo & Mayo, Wilkinson & Ward for plaintiff, appellee.*

*Norman & Rodman for defendants, appellants.*

Per Curiam:

Upon careful consideration of the evidence shown in the record of case on appeal taken in the light most favorable to plaintiff, it appears sufficient to support the verdict of the jury, and the verdict is adequate to support the judgment.

The record indicates that the trial was conducted in accordance with law, and error for which the verdict and judgment should be disturbed is not made to appear. Hence in the judgment from which appeal is taken there is ■

No error.
#### STATE v. SAMUEL J. BROWN.

(Filed 21 September, 1955.)

Appeal and Error § 38—

Where the Supreme Court is evenly divided in opinion, the judgment of the lower court will be affirmed without becoming a precedent.

Appeal by defendant from *Nettles,*</., February Term, 1955, of BuNcombe.

Upon indictment and trial by jury, defendant was found guilty of larceny as charged. From judgment pronounced, imposing a prison sentence, defendant appealed.

*Attorney-General Rodman and Assistant Attorney-General Love for the State.*

*W. W. Candler and Cecil C. Jackson for defendant, appellant.*

PER Curiam.

It is the unanimous opinion of this Court that defendant’s motion for nonsuit was properly overruled.

Two members of the Court, *Winborne*and *Higgins, JJ.,*not sitting, but with *Devin, Emergency Justice,*participating in lieu of *Winborne, J.,*and the six sitting members being equally divided in opinion as to whether prejudicial error in the conduct of the trial has been shown, the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed, without becoming a precedent. *Allen v. Ins. Co.,*211 N.C. 736, 190 S.E. 735.

Affirmed.