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

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 601 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a reduced capital 

gains rate on certain property acquired in 2021. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 28, 2021 

Mr. SCHWEIKERT (for himself and Mr. NUNES) 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 provide 

a reduced capital gains rate on certain property acquired 

in 2021. 

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 ‘‘Invest Now Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. REDUCED CAPITAL GAINS RATE ON CERTAIN PROP6 ERTY ACQUIRED IN 2021. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1(h) of the Internal Rev8 enue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 

9 following new paragraph: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 601 IH

1 ‘‘(12) REDUCED RATE FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY

2 ACQUIRED IN 2021.— 

3 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—So much of the ad4 justed net capital gain taxed at a rate of 20 

5 percent under paragraph (1) (determined with6 out regard to this paragraph) to the extent at7 tributable to the sale or exchange of qualified 

8 property shall be taxed at a rate of 5 percent 

9 under such paragraph (and not 20 percent). 

10 ‘‘(B) COORDINATION WITH 15 PERCENT

11 RATE.—So much of the adjusted net capital 

12 gain taxed at a rate of 15 percent or 20 percent 

13 under paragraph (1) (determined without re14 gard to this paragraph) to the extent attrib15 utable to the sale or exchange of qualified prop16 erty (reduced by so much of such gain as is 

17 taxed at the rate determined under clause (i)) 

18 shall be taxed at a rate of 5 percent (and not 

19 15 percent). 

20 ‘‘(C) QUALIFIED PROPERTY.—For pur21 poses of this paragraph— 

22 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘quali23 fied property’ means any property— 

24 ‘‘(I) purchased (as defined in sec25 tion 179(d)(2)) by the taxpayer after 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 601 IH

1 December 31, 2020, and before Janu2 ary 1, 2022, and 

3 ‘‘(II) held by the taxpayer (as de4 termined under section 1223) for a 

5 period of more than 5 years. 

6 ‘‘(ii) EXCEPTION FOR WASH SALES.— 

7 Such term shall not include any property 

8 the basis of which is determined under sec9 tion 1091(d).’’. 

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

11 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

12 December 31, 2021. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               Oct-02-1999
<CASH>                                      19,133,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               46,478,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 7,314,000
<INVENTORY>                                 43,168,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           119,151,000
<PP&E>                                      68,072,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              36,018,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             157,701,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       51,682,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       162,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  92,804,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               157,701,000
<SALES>                                    140,831,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           143,080,000
<CGS>                                       82,892,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               36,073,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                52,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             193,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             24,082,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 9,388,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         14,694,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                14,694,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .90
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .89



</TABLE>
##### 



Summary of Compensation Payable
to Nonemployee Directors
 February 2007
  Cash Compensation
  
    
    An annual retainer of $40,000, payable quarterly;
    
    Additional annual retainer of $7,500 for each of the Lead
Nonemployee Director and the Chair of the Audit and Finance
Committee and $5,000 for each of the Chairs of the Management
Development and Compensation Committee and the Nominating and
Corporate Governance Committee;
    
    Meeting attendance fees of $1,250 per Board meeting and $1,000 per
meeting of Board Committees; and
    
    Teleconference meeting attendance fees, beginning May 2006, of
$500 per meeting of the Audit and Finance Committee for review of
quarterly earnings releases.
  Equity Compensation




---



#####
#### Ex Parte Allen Eason.

No. 24821.

April 19, 1950.

*Grady Sturgeon, Sr.,*Paris, for applicant.

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

Per Curiam:

This is an application for writ of habeas corpus, by which appellant seeks to gain his release from the state penitentiary.

A certified copy of the judgment accompanying the record shows that appellant was convicted by a jury in the district court of Jim Wells County, on the 6th day of March, 1941, on an indictment charging that he knowingly and fraudulently passed as true a forged instrument in writing. It is also recited that the indictment alleged two prior convictions for felonies less than capital. The jury returned into court the following verdict, which is copied in the judgment: “We the jury find the defendant, Allen Eason alias J. L. Ellis guilty as charged in indictment #544 of knowingly and fraudulently passing as true to Otto Schvab a forged instrument in writing, and further that the defendant was duly and legally convicted in Cause #47840 in Criminal District Court #2 Harris County, Texas, and further the defendant was duly and legally convicted in Cause #4350 in the District Court Victoria County, Texas, and assess his punishment at life imprisonment in the penitentiary. Ed Magill, Foreman.”

In entering the judgment on this verdict his punishment was stated to be “by confinement in the State penitentiary for a term of not less than two (2) years nor more than his natural life, * * *.”

*518We have never held such judgments to be void unless they were pronounced by the court without a jury’s verdict. It is definite and certain by the verdict copied in the judgment that his punishment was to be for his natural life. In this case, under the habitual criminal statute, the punishment would follow as a matter, of law when the jury found he was guilty of the offense charged and that he had been previously convicted twice for felonies less than capital.

It is further noted that the application is accompanied by a certified copy of the sentence following the judgment and that the court attempted to apply the indeterminate sentence law. One given a life sentence as the only penalty that can be fixed under the law cannot receive the benefits of the indeterminate sentence. Price v. State, 150 Texas Crim. Rep. 161, 199 S. W. 2d 168.

The application for writ of habeas corpus is denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

TIMOTHY J. HOFFMAN AND KAREN D. 

HOFFMAN, HIS WIFE,

Petitioners

v.

JAMES P. SNELL, ANADARKO E & P 

COMPANY, LP, AND CHESAPEAKE 

APPALACHIA, LLC,

Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 263 MAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 15th day of September, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATIONS 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 First Quarter Report of OshKosh B'Gosh, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 5, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David L. Omachinski, Chief Operating and 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 to the best of my knowledge:

|(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.



|Date:	April 25, 2003 | By: | /S/DAVID L. OMACHINSKI                       
|-------------------- | --- | ---------------------------------------------
|                     |     |                                              
|                     |     | David L. Omachinski                          
|                     |     | Executive Vice President, Chief Operating and
|                     |     | Financial Officer, Treasurer and Director    

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to OshKosh B'Gosh, Inc. and will be retained by OshKosh B'Gosh, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          45,144
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   47,312
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,737
<INVENTORY>                                     52,537
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               150,319
<PP&E>                                          40,918
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,993
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 179,094
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           58,105
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            32
<OTHER-SE>                                     120,601
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   179,094
<SALES>                                        137,740
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               140,078
<CGS>                                           81,528
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   82,082
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,023
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (1,617)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,422
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,681
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,422
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,741
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .11


</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

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

 May 27, 2014

s0519

Order 

Clerk

May 27, 2014

148832

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148832

COA: 318540

Oakland CC: 2012-242869-FC

TIMOTHY SUAVE WILLIAMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 9, 2014 order 

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

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EX-10.82



 Exhibit 10.82 

CONFORMED COPY 

AMENDMENT NO. 4 
 TO THE
WEBMD HEALTH CORP. 
 SUPPLEMENTAL BONUS PROGRAM TRUST AGREEMENT 

THIS AMENDMENT is made to be effective as of February 25, 2014: 

WHEREAS, WebMD Health Corp. (the “Company”) and Peter Anevski (the “Trustee”) are parties to the WebMD Health Corp.
Supplemental Bonus Program Trust Agreement (as Amended and Restated Effective as of March 15, 2008 and further amended by Amendment Nos. 1, 2 and 3) (the “Trust Agreement”); 

WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors approved an extension of the supplemental bonus program, as provided herein; and

 NOW, THEREFORE, the Trust Agreement is hereby amended as follows: 

1. 
 Section 1.01(a)(iii) of
the Trust is hereby amended by replacing “December 31, 2014” with “December 31, 2015”. 
 2. 

Section 1.01(b) is amended by adding the following at the end thereof: “The Company has made Bonuses under the supplemental bonus
program for the performance year ended December 31, 2013 and, accordingly, extended the term of the supplemental bonus program and the Trust until full payment of such Bonuses has been made, subject to Section 1.01(a).” 

3. 
 Except as provided herein,
the provisions of the Trust Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. All references to the Trust Agreement shall be references to the Trust Agreement as amended by this Amendment No. 4. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned has duly executed this Amendment to the Trust
Agreement to be effective as of the day and year first written above. 
  

					
	TRUSTEE	  		  	WEBMD HEALTH CORP.
			
	      /s/ Peter Anevski
	  		  	      /s/ David Schlanger

	Peter Anevski	  		  	David Schlanger
			
		  		  	      /s/ Peter Anevski

		  		  	Peter Anevski


  
 2
EX-4.56



 Exhibit 4.56 

Supplementary Agreement to the ZT Online 2 Game Software Distribution and License Agreement 

This Supplementary Agreement to the ZT Online 2 Game Software Distribution and License Agreement (“Supplementary Agreement”) is made and
entered into on January 5, 2014 (“Effective date”) in Shanghai, the People’s Republic of China, by and between: 

Party A: Shanghai Zhengju Information Technology Co., Ltd. 

Address: 4FL, Building No.2, No.396 Guilin Road, Shanghai, PRC 

Party B: Shanghai Giant Network Technology Co., Ltd. 

Address: Room 708, Building No.29, No.396 Guilin Road, Shanghai, PRC 
  

	1.	WHEREAS, Party A and Party B entered into the Game Software Distribution and License Agreement (the “Original Agreement”) on August 27, 2010 and Supplementary Agreement (the “Supplement
Agreement No.1) on June 20, 2011. According to the terms of Original Agreement and the Supplementary Agreement No.1, Party A authorizes Party B to distribute and operate the Game ZT Online 2 V2.0 and Party B shall pay to Party A revenue share.


  

	2.	Through friendly negotiation, Party A and Party B agree to make some modification to the Original Agreement and Supplementary Agreement No.1 


Now, therefore, adhering to the principles of equality and mutual benefit, and after friendly negotiations, the Parties reach the following agreement
for mutual compliance 
  

	1.	Article 5.1 of the Original Agreement and Article 2 of the Supplementary Agreement No.1 shall be changed as follows: 


“From January 1, 2014, Party B shall pay 40% of the revenue (book value) to Party A from the operation of ZT Online 2 V2.0 at the end
of each month as the royalty fee. In another words, the revenue share that attributed to Party A shall be changed from 65% as agreed in Supplementary Agreement No.1 to 40% from January 1, 2014.” 

 

	2.	All the other content that is not provided by this Supplementary Agreement shall be governed by the Original Agreement and Supplementary Agreement No.1. 


 

	3.	This Supplementary Agreement shall supersede the Original Agreement and Supplementary Agreement No.1 with respect to the subject matter. 


 

	4.	This Supplementary Agreement shall become effective immediately upon sealed by the Parties. This Supplementary Agreement is prepared in four counterparts; either party shall have two counterparts with the same legal
effect. 

  

			
	 Party A: Shanghai Zhengju
 Information
Technology Co., Ltd.
	  	 Party B: Shanghai Giant Network

Technology Co., Ltd.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 6101** 

GEORGE JENKINS , Petitioner

- Appellant ,
v. WARDEN ROBERT STEVENSON , Respondent

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Beaufort
. R. Bryan Harwell , District Judge. ( 9:09

- cv - 00057

- RBH )

Submitted : April 22, 2010 Decided: April 28, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion
. George Jenkins, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Samuel Creighton Waters, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PE R CURIAM: George Jenkins seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a cer tificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006)
. A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006) . A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonst rating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller

El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683

- 84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jenkins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Jenkins’s mot ion to appoint counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisiona l process.

DISMISSED
| (1)   | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) of                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. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                 |                                                  |              |
|--------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|-------------------|
| Dated:                March 29, 2007 |                                                  |              |
|                                 |                                                  | /s/ James B. Turk |
|                                 | James B. TurkChief Financial                  Officer |

----
#### Alice Gallagher, Respondent, v. The City of New York, Appellant.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Woodward, Hooker, Gaynor, Rich and Miller, JJ.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6246 

To direct the Department of Defense to establish policies and procedures 

for providing continuing language education to military linguists, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 13, 2021 

Mr. BACON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To direct the Department of Defense to establish policies 

and procedures for providing continuing language education to military linguists, 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 ‘‘Defense Language 

5 Continuing Education Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DEFENSE LANGUAGE CONTINUING EDUCATION 

7 PROGRAM. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the 

9 date of the enactment of this Act, the Under Secretary 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6246 IH

1 of Defense for Personnel and Readiness shall establish 

2 policies and procedures to provide, to linguists of the cov3 ered Armed Forces who have made the transition from 

4 formal training programs to operational and staff assign5 ments, continuing language education to maintain their 

6 respective language proficiencies. 

7 (b) REIMBURSEMENT AUTHORITY.— 

8 (1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than one year 

9 after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 

10 Under Secretary, in coordination with the chief of 

11 each covered Armed Force, shall establish a proce12 dure by which the covered Armed Force concerned 

13 may reimburse an organization of the Department of 

14 Defense that provides, to members of such covered 

15 Armed Force, continuing language education, de16 scribed in subsection (a), for the costs of such edu17 cation. 

18 (2) SUNSET.—The authority under this sub19 section shall expire on September 30, 2025. 

20 (c) BRIEFING.—Not later than July 1, 2022, the 

21 Under Secretary shall brief the Committees on Armed 

22 Services of the Senate and House of Representatives on 

23 implementation of this section and plans regarding con24 tinuing language education described in subsection (a). 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6246 IH

1 (d) COVERED ARMED FORCE DEFINED.—In this sec2 tion, the term ‘‘covered Armed Force’’ means the Army, 

3 Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Space Force. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
**
**Exhibit 23.2**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-224947-01,333-204364-01, and 333-181102-01) of American Campus Communities Operating Partnership LP and Subsidiaries and in the related Prospectuses of our reports dated February 28, 2019, with respect to the consolidated financialstatements of American Campus Communities Operating Partnership LP and Subsidiaries and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of American Campus Communities Operating Partnership LP and Subsidiaries, included in this AnnualReport (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2018, as amended by Amendment No. 1 thereto. 

/s/Ernst & Young LLP 

Austin, Texas 

April 23,2019 
**