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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 635 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 635

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the excise tax 
 exemption for air transportation for the purpose of providing medical 
                                 care.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 23, 1995

   Mr. Herger (for himself, Mr. Hancock, and Ms. Dunn of Washington) 
 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 expand the excise tax 
 exemption for air transportation for the purpose of providing medical 
                                 care.

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

SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF EXCISE TAX EXEMPTION FOR TRANSPORTATION BY AIR 
              FOR MEDICAL CARE.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (f) of section 4261 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exemption for certain emergency 
medical transportation) is amended to read as follows:
    ``(f) Exemption for Medical Transportation.--No tax shall be 
imposed under this section or section 4271 on any air transportation 
for the purpose of providing medical care if such transportation is not 
scheduled and is not along regular routes.''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to transportation beginning on or after the date of the enactment of 
this Act, but shall not apply to amounts paid before such date.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-01-2000
<CASH>                                       4,476,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               30,430,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 6,847,000
<INVENTORY>                                 45,041,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            88,825,000
<PP&E>                                      67,937,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              36,996,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             128,089,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       60,619,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       124,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  23,063,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               128,089,000
<SALES>                                     95,051,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            97,128,000
<CGS>                                       54,464,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               33,997,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (49,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,187,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              7,690,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,999,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,691,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,691,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .37


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.3
                                                                    ------------


                   CIT Commercial Services         T: 212 382-7000
                   1211 Avenue of the Americas
                   New York, NY 10036


CIT [GRAPHIC OMITTED]                                      May 13, 2003


Levcor International, Inc.
462 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10018

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We refer to the Factoring Agreement between us dated September 17, 1998, as
amended and supplemented (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein and
not defined herein shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Agreement.

This letter shall confirm that pursuant to mutual consent and understanding,
effective as of the even date herewith, the second sentence in Section 16.1 of
the Agreement shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

"Anniversary Date" shall mean August 31, 2004 and the same date in each year
thereafter."

To compensate us for the use of our in-house legal department and facilities in
documenting this amendment, you hereby agree to pay us a Documentation Fee equal
to $135.00. Said amount shall be due and payable upon the date hereof and may be
changed by us, at our option, to your account under the Agreement on the due
date thereof.

Except as herein specifically provided, the Amendment remains in full force and
effect in accordance with its terms and no other changes in the terms or
provisions of the Agreement is intended or implied. If you are in agreement with
the foregoing, please so indicate by signing and returning to us the enclosed
copy of this letter.

                                       Very truly yours,

                                       THE CIT GROUP/COMMERCIAL SERVICES, INC.

                                       By: /s/ ANTHONY MONTEMARANO
                                           -----------------------
                                       Name:   Anthony Montemarano
                                       Title:  Vice President

Read and Agreed to:

LEVCOR INTERNATIONAL, INC.

By: /s/ ROBERT A. LEVINSON
    ----------------------
Name:   Robert A. Levinson
Title:  Chairman, Pres., CEO
#### Craig Reginald RIVERS, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Lyvia LIU, D.A.; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 02-57001.

D.C. No. CV-02-8164-GAF.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 20, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California state inmate Craig Reginald Rivers appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action seeking to enjoin his ongoing state criminal proceedings. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Green v. City of Tucson,*255 F.3d 1086, 1093 (9th Cir.) (en banc), *cert. dismissed,*533 U.S. 966, 122 S.Ct. 4, 150 L.Ed.2d 787 (2001), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Rivers’ action because *Younger v. Harris,*401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971), prohibits federal courts from enjoining pending state criminal prosecutions. *See Green,*255 F.3d at 1094-96 (explaining *Younger*abstention doctrine).

AFFIRMED.1

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. We will not entertain appellant’s request for bail contained in his "Statement” to the court, received February 24, 2003.
#### GRAFF v. MARMELZADT.

No. 16836.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Feb. 26, 1940.

Theo. McGiehan and Fred Z. H. Gerdes, both of New Orleans, for appellant.

Yarrut & Stich, of New Orleans, for ap-pellee.

WESTERFIELD, Judge.

Plaintiff, Mrs. Esther Korn Graff, alleging that Max Marmelzadt is the owner of the premises No. 2145 Robert Street, in the City of New Orleans, brings this suit against him, claiming $4,110 as damages *63for physical injuries alleged to have been caused hy the faulty construction of a stairway. At the time of her alleged injuries plaintiff was a guest of her nephew, H. Charles Korn, the lessee of the building. The defense is, in effect, a general denial.

Upon the trial of the case, it developed that the property belonged to Mar-melzadt’s wife, though it is conceded that he was the lessor. Marmelzadt’s responsibility is that of a lessor and not that of owner.

This case, it will be observed, is very similar to Duplain v. Wiltz, La.App., 194 So. 60, this day decided,' in which we held that a wife was a third person and-not entitled to avail herself of the benefits of Articles 2692 and 2695 of the Revised Civil Code, with reference to repairs and maintenance of the leased premises, these articles running in favor of the lessee only. The only perceptible difference in this case is that here, the plaintiff is the aunt of the lessee, whereas, in the Duplain case, it was the wife of the lessee who brought the suit. The principle is, of course, the same, and therefore, for the reasons given in that case, plaintiff’s suit must be dismissed.

For the reasons assigned the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
Exhibit
      23.1


**Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**




We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
      Form
      S-3 (Nos. 333-95361, 333-33986, 333-37630, 333-45818, 333-49628, 333-59346,
      333-63514, 333-99559, 333-99673, 333-106420, 333-110729, 333-112611, 333-124959,
      333-124961, 333-128497 and 333-129713), and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-74197, 333-86728
      and 333-124960) of our report dated April 15, 2007, relating to the consolidated
      financial statements and schedule of Arotech Corporation appearing in this
      Form
      10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006.




/s/ BDO
              Seidman, LLPBDO
              Seidman, LLP




Grand
      Rapids, Michigan


April
      16,
      2007
Exhibit 10.41 [Protection One
Letterhead]  March 19, 2003  Susan K. Duffy
Executive Director
Kansas Corporation Commission
1500 SW Arrowhead Road
Topeka, KS  66604-4027 Dear Ms. Duffy: Protection One, Inc. hereby submits this letter in
response to Commission Order No. 65 in the captioned docket.  As required by Order No. 65, Protection
One has released Westar Energy from certain claims specified in Paragraphs 14 -
16 therein relating to Protection One Data Services, Inc., AV One, Inc. and the
Management Services Agreement, all as set forth more fully in the attached
letter from Protection One to Westar Energy. 
Protection One also accepts the conditions set forth in Order
No. 65 relating to matters other than PODS, AV One and the Management
Service Agreement and will not seek reconsideration of Order No. 65. Sincerely, /s/ J. Eric Griffin J. Eric Griffin
Vice President and General Counsel
183 La. 433

#### STATE v. CREECH.

Nos. 33566, 33567, 33568, 33569, 33579.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 4, 1935.

See, also, State v. McDonald, 181 La. 547, 160 So. 75; Id.,181 La. 549, 160 So. 75.

Pegues & Pegues, of Mansfield, for -appellants.

*163Gaston L. Portcrie, Atty. Gen., James O’Connor, Asst. Atty. Gen., A. B. Cavanaugh, Dist. Atty., of Leesville, and Lessley P. Gardiner, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

FOURNET, Justice.

Each defendant in the above-entitlea and numbered cases was convicted in the parish of De Soto on a charge of operating a “blind tiger” and sentenced to pay fine of $301 and costs and serve thirty days in the parish jail. From their respective conviction and sentence, each has appealed.

The records contain neither a bill of exception nor a motion for a new trial, and, therefore, present nothing for this court to review.

The verdicts and sentences are affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7813

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ANDREW CHARLES JACKSON, a/k/a William Benbow, a/k/a Ricky 

Antonio Bady, a/k/a Sway,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey, 

District Judge. (3:00-cr-00006-JPB-RWT-1; 3:00-cr-00046-JPBRWT-1)

Submitted: April 21, 2016 Decided: April 25, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew Charles Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas 

Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Andrew Charles Jackson appeals the district court’s order 

denying his “Petition for Discovery of Voir Dire Examination 

Habeas Corpus § 121 Evidentiary Hearing.” We have reviewed the 

record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for 

the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. 

Jackson, Nos. 3:00-cr-00006-JPB-RWT-1; 3:00-cr-00046-JPB-RWT-1

(N.D.W. Va. Oct. 14, 2015). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### Charlie Clyde Simmons v. State.

No. 24812.

October 18, 1950.

No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is a conviction for driving an automobile upon a public highway while intoxicated; the punishment, a fine of $100.

*190The automobile appellant was driving was one of the three motor vehicles in collision upon a public highway at night.

The witness Taylor, a highway patrolman, who arrived at the scene of the collision shortly thereafter, testified that appellant was, in his opinion, drunk and under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Such opinion was based upon his smelling whisky on appellant’s breath. The witness White, another highway patrolman, testified to finding some partially filled beer and whisky bottles in appellant’s automobile.

Appellant was injured in the collision and was carried from the scene of the collision in an ambulance to the hospital, where he was hospitalized for some time.

He denied that he was intoxicated or that he had drunk any of the beer and whisky found in the car.

The conclusion is expressed that highway patrolman Taylor was shown to have had sufficient experience to authorize him to express the opinion that appellant was intoxicated, and that the trial court did not err in admitting the testimony of both the officers.

The bills of exception relating to argument of state’s counsel fail to reflect error, because the trial court qualified the bill by certifying that the argument complained of was in answer to argument of appellant’s counsel.

No reversible error appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                       1,208,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               17,927,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (340,000)
<INVENTORY>                                 17,693,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            38,787,000
<PP&E>                                     108,929,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            (36,096,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             123,373,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       19,019,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                     9,243,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  68,574,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               123,373,000
<SALES>                                     26,446,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            26,446,000
<CGS>                                       19,148,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               24,073,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (82,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             516,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,775,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   533,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,228,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,228,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.15
        

</TABLE>
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Julie T. Chau

, * From the 161st District Court

of Ector County

Trial Court No. B

- 136,673

.

Vs. No. 11

- 17

- 00047

- CV * July 19 , 2018

Se lect Medical Corporation * Opinion by Willson, J.

d/b/a Regency Hospital of Odessa, LLP, (Panel consists of: Willson, J.,

Bailey, J. , and Wright, S.C.J.,

s itting by assignment )

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes tha t there is error

in the judgment below. Therefore , in accordance with this court’ s opinion, we reverse

the judgment of the trial court, and we remand this cause to the trial court for further

proceedi ngs . The costs incurred by reason of this appe al are taxed against Select

Medical Corporation d/b/a Regency Hospital of Odessa, LLP

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           9,658,000
<SECURITIES>                                     4,158,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,008,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (349,000)
<INVENTORY>                                     16,547,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                51,275,000
<PP&E>                                         122,860,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (39,395,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 151,536,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           26,496,000
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         8,512,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      71,242,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   151,536,000
<SALES>                                         78,056,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                78,056,000
<CGS>                                           55,594,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   70,160,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   979,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,405,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,512,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,654,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,859,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,859,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.46
        

</TABLE>
#### E. D. Gartner & Company’s Assignment.

Argued Oct. 29, 1907.

Appeal, No. 59, Oct. T., 1907, by Marshall McClain, Receiver, from decree of C. P. No. 1, Allegheny Co., March T., 1906, No. 522, appointing Guarantee Trust & Title Company assignee of E. D. Gartner *&*Co., and directing the receiver to turn over assets to the substituted trustee *440in the matter of the voluntary assignment of E. D. Gartner & Company for the benefit of creditors.

Before Mitchell, C. J., Fell, Brown, Mestrezat, Potter, Elkin and Stewart, JJ.

Affirmed.

January 6, 1908:

Opinion by

Mr. Justice Mestrezat,

The affirmance of the decree in Marshall McClain, Receiver, v. The Pittsburg Stock Exchange, ante, p. 435, necessarily sustains the order made in this case, and therefore this appeal is dismissed at the cost of the appellant.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999             MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999             MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           2,414                   2,479
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,002                   3,815
<ALLOWANCES>                                       599                     617
<INVENTORY>                                        807                     634
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,911                   6,776
<PP&E>                                           7,915                   7,003
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,602                   4,237
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,765                  12,630
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,744                   5,612
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                        956                   1,500
<COMMON>                                        18,121                  15,204
<OTHER-SE>                                    (13,145)                (11,286)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,932                   5,418
<SALES>                                         21,899                  19,811
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,899                  19,811
<CGS>                                            9,547                  10,209
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,909                  14,897
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 302                     651
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,859)                 (5,876)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,859)                 (5,876)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,859)                 (5,876)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.21)                  (0.76)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.21)                  (0.76)


</TABLE>