alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS
OF INCOME, CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH
FLOWS, AND QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,186,396
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      5,918
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         405,094
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        16,460
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                  60,717
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,674,585
<COMMON>                                       165,307
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            458,262
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 623,569
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           462,400
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                 700
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 587,916
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                1,674,585
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      825,827
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            50,908
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     672,954
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     723,862
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        101,965
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               1,369
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 103,334
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        16,896
<NET-INCOME>                                    86,438
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   86,438
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        26,306
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       15,548
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          80,306
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6182 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to allow a religious exemption for 

certain individuals from photo identification requirements, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 8, 2021 

Mr. GIBBS (for himself and Mr. BALDERSON) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to allow a religious 

exemption for certain individuals from photo identification requirements, 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 ‘‘Protecting Religious 

5 Exemptions for Amish Communities and Households Act’’ 

6 or the ‘‘PREACH Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6182 IH

1 SEC. 2. RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION FOR AMISH AND MENNON2 ITES FROM PHOTOGRAPHIC IDENTIFICATION 

3 REQUIREMENT TO PURCHASE A FIREARM 

4 FROM A FEDERALLY LICENSED FIREARMS 

5 DEALER. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 922(t) of title 18, United 

7 States Code, is amended— 

8 (1) in paragraph (1)(C), by inserting ‘‘or, in 

9 the case of a transferee whom the Attorney General 

10 certifies has qualified for a religious exemption 

11 under paragraph (7), the certification and the iden12 tification document described in paragraph 

13 (7)(A)(ii)’’ before the period; and 

14 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

15 ‘‘(7)(A) An individual desiring a religious exemption 

16 under this paragraph shall submit to the Attorney Gen17 eral— 

18 ‘‘(i) a letter from a bishop of an Amish or Men19 nonite church who is registered with the State as 

20 such a bishop, indicating that the individual is a 

21 member of the church and sincerely believes in the 

22 teachings of the church; 

23 ‘‘(ii) an identification document issued by the 

24 State, which shall not be required to include a pho25 tograph of the individual; and 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6182 IH

1 ‘‘(iii) all documents of the individual that were 

2 required by the State for the issuance of the identi3 fication document. 

4 ‘‘(B) On verification of the validity of the letter and 

5 documents described in subparagraph (A), the Attorney 

6 General shall certify that the individual has qualified for 

7 a religious exemption under this paragraph.’’. 

8 SEC. 3. IMPLEMENTATION. 

9 Within 90 days after the date of the enactment of 

10 this Act, the Attorney General shall prescribe such regula11 tions as are necessary to implement the amendments made 

12 by section 2. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT

Intcomex, Inc.s owns 100% of all principal subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2008, including the following:



|    |  |                                                          |  |                                    
|--- |  | -------------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------
|    |  | Subsidiary Name                                          |  | Jurisdiction                       
|1.  |  | Intcomex Holdings, LLC                                   |  | Delaware                           
|2.  |  | Intcomex International Holdings Cooperatief U.A.         |  | Netherlands                        
|3.  |  | Intcomex Holdings SPC-I, LLC                             |  | Delaware and Mexico (dually-formed)
|4.  |  | IFC International, LLC                                   |  | Delaware                           
|5.  |  | Software Brokers of America, Inc.                        |  | Florida                            
|6.  |  | IXLA Holdings, Ltd.                                      |  | Cayman Islands                     
|7.  |  | Intcomex Argentina S.R.L.                                |  | Argentina                          
|8.  |  | Intcomex S.A.                                            |  | Chile                              
|9.  |  | Intcomex Iquique S.A.                                    |  | Chile                              
|10. |  | Intcomex del Ecuador, S.A.                               |  | Ecuador                            
|11. |  | Hurricane Systems, S.A.                                  |  | Ecuador                            
|12. |  | Intcomex Colombia LTDA                                   |  | Colombia                           
|13. |  | Intcomex Costa Rica Mayorista en Equipo de Cómputo, S.A. |  | Costa Rica                         
|14. |  | Intcomex El Salvador, S.A.                               |  | El Salvador                        
|15. |  | Intcomex de Guatemala, S.A.                              |  | Guatemala                          
|16. |  | Intcomex Jamaica Ltd.                                    |  | Jamaica                            
|17. |  | Intcomex de las Americas, S.A.                           |  | Panama                             
|18. |  | Computación Monrenca Panama, S.A.                        |  | Panama                             
|19. |  | Intcomex Peru, S.A.C.                                    |  | Peru                               
|20. |  | Pontix Trading S.A. (inactive)                           |  | Uruguay                            
|21. |  | Compañía de Servicios IMSC, S. de R.L. de C.V.           |  | Mexico                             
|22. |  | T.G.M., S.A.                                             |  | Uruguay                            
|23. |  | Latin CAS, S.D.                                          |  | El Salvador                        
|24. |  | Latin Service, S.A.                                      |  | Guatemala
#### MONTICELLO v. SPANO.

No. 13736.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Nov. 3, 1931.

Stanley McDermott and John C. Moulin, both of New Orleans, for appellee.

John J. Wingrave, of New Orleans, for appellant.

WESTERFIELD, J.

This case grows out of an intersectional collision and is a suit for damages in the sum of 3⁄8105.50, alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff’s ear, a Peerless sedan, which collided with a Ford truck belonging to defendant at the corner of Conti and Decatur streets at 2 a. m. August 17, 1930. There was judgment below in favor of plaintiff, and defendant has appealed.

At the time of the accident, the Peerless-was driven by plaintiff’s daughter, Miss Margaret Monticello, and was occupied by five-other young people. The party had been to a roadhouse and afterward to the French Market for a cup of coffee, and were on their way home when the accident occurred. All of the occupants of plaintiff’s car testified in substantial agreement that the Peerless was driven at a moderate speed and the truck at a very rapid rate; that, as the two cars approached the intersection, the horn of the Peerless was blown and the horn of the track was not. On the other hand, the four occupants of the Ford truck testified that the truck was going very slowly and the Peerless very fast, and attribute the accident to the excessive speed of the Peerless, which one witness placed at forty-five miles per hour.

As often appears in similar cases, the testimony of the witnesses is, for the most part, irreconcilable. It is not disputed, however, that the Peerless was struck in the rear right side, indicating, as plaintiff’s witnesses claim, that it had almost completed the crossing when defendant’s truck entered. This circumstance is sufficient to turn the scale in plaintiff’s favor, even were the evidence otherwise in balance. Felder v. Horn, 16 La. App. 603, 135 So. 121; Seawell v. Louisiana Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 15 La. App. 704, 133 So. 176; Krousel v. Thieme et al., 13 La. App. 680, 128 So. 670.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice 6329]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                         *et seq.*; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                         *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition “Art and Love in Renaissance Italy”, imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York, from on or about November 11, 2008, until on or about February 16, 2009; and at the Kimbell Art Museum, Forth Worth, Texas, from on or about March 15, 2009 until on or about June 14, 2009; and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        For further information, including a list of the exhibit objects, contact Wolodymyr Sulzynsky, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (                        *telephone:*                         202/453-8050). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.                    

Dated: August 15, 2008.

C. Miller Crouch,

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. E8-19775 Filed 8-25-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

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

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-03-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-29-2000
<CASH>                                          53,194
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   43,931
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,611
<INVENTORY>                                    269,130
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               374,277
<PP&E>                                         276,608
<DEPRECIATION>                                  30,797
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 967,271
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          250,427
<BONDS>                                        299,753
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           201
<OTHER-SE>                                     313,072
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   967,271
<SALES>                                      1,199,803
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,222,358
<CGS>                                          927,494
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  927,494
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,256
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (46,442)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,849
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (50,291)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (50,291)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.50)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.50)


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael D. CORNELL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02—41312.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 19, 2003.

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Michael D. Cornell appeals his conviction of possession with intent to distribute three kilograms of cocaine. Cornell ar*395gues that his trial counsel was ineffective because, in questioning the Government’s agent, counsel opened the door to testimony that the court earlier had excluded and because counsel helped the Government’s case by eliciting evidence of the plea negotiations between Cornell and the Government.

The ineffectiveness claims raised in Cornell’s appeal brief are different from the claims raised in his new-trial motion in the district court, and no evidentiary hearing has been held on his claims. Consequently, the record has not been developed adequately for this court to consider the ineffective-assistance claims raised on direct appeal. *Cf. United States v. Haese,*162 F.3d 359, 363 (5th Cir.1998). Cornell’s appeal is DISMISSED without prejudice to Cornell’s right to raise the instant claims in a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### In the Matter of Francis H., a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent, Appellant.

[677 NYS2d 474]

Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Stewart Weinstein, J.), entered on or about February 5, 1998, which granted the petition of the New York State Office of Children and Family Services to extend appellant’s placement with that agency and extended his placement for a period of 12 months, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) demonstrated good cause for late filing of the petition for extension of placement (Family Ct Act § 355.3 [2]), given that the reason for the delay was OCFS’ decision to await final determination of appellant’s new criminal proceeding, which was expected to terminate with an incarcerative sentence (removing jurisdiction from the presenting agency) but in fact resulted in a probationary sentence. Concur — Lerner, P. J., Milonas, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Patrick Louis ASTORE, aka Patrick Bedsaul, Defendant — Appellant.

No. 01-30331.

D.C. No. CR-00-00016-RCT.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 5, 2002.

Decided Nov. 14, 2002.

Before TROTT, T.G. NELSON and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Patrick Louis Astore (“Astore”) appeals the concurrent 108-month sentences imposed following his guilty plea to one count of receipt of child pornography and one count of possession of child pornography. We review de novo a district court’s interpretation and application of the Sentencing Guidelines, *United States v. Johnson,*297 F.3d 845, 867 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

*869Astore argues that the district court’s five-point enhancement for a pattern of activity under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(4) is impermissible double counting because his past convictions for sexual abuse of minors were already accounted for in his criminal history category and led to the imposition of a statutorily mandated minimum sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(b)(l). “Impermissible double counting occurs *only*when *one part of the Guidelines*is applied to increase a defendant’s punishment on account of a kind of harm that has already been fully accounted for by application of *another part of the Guidelines.*” *United States v. Martin,*278 F.3d 988, 1004 (9th Cir.2002) (quoting *United States v. Alexander,*48 F.3d 1477, 1492 (9th Cir. 1995)) (emphases added). Mandatory minimum sentences do not create impermissible double counting because they are statutorily imposed and not a part of the Guidelines.

Additionally, the application note to U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2 specifically provides that “[p]rior convictions taken into account under subsection (b)(4) [pattern of activity enhancement] are also counted for purposes of determining criminal history points.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2G2.2, cmt. n. 2 (2000). The district court properly applied a five-level enhancement for pattern of activity, and no impermissible double counting occurred.

Astore also argues that his offenses should have been grouped pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3D1.2(b). In light of our decision upholding the enhancement, this Court need not reach the grouping issue because it has no effect on Astore’s total offense level or sentence.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
Exhibit 32.1

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 Annual Report of LifeCare Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, W. Earl Reed,
III, Chief Executive 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 220, 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 position and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: April 2, 2007



/s/ W. EARL REED, IIIW. Earl Reed, IIIChief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 10.33**REVOLVING PROMISSORY NOTEOmaha, NebraskaNote Date: August 16, 2006 $3,500,000.00Maturity Date: July 5, 2007     On or before July 5, 2007, **Red Trail Energy, LLC**(“BORROWER”), promises to pay to the orderof **First National Bank of Omaha**(“BANK”) at any of its offices in Omaha, Nebraska the principalsum hereof, which shall be Three Million Five Hundred Thousand and no/100 ($3,500,000.00) Dollarsor so much thereof as may have been advanced by BANK and shown on the records of the BANK to beoutstanding, under this Note and the Construction Loan Agreement executed by the BANK and BORROWERdated as of December 16, 2005, as it may, from time to time, be amended (the “LOAN AGREEMENT”).Interest on the principal balance from time to time outstanding will be payable at a rate equal tothe LIBOR RATE plus three hundred forty (340) basis points from time to time until maturity, andsix hundred (600) basis points in excess of said aggregate interest rate from time to time aftermaturity, whether by acceleration or otherwise. Interest shall be calculated on the basis of a360-day year, counting the actual number of days elapsed. Interest on this NOTE shall be payablequarterly, commencing November 16, 2006, and continuing on the same date of each third monththereafter. Provided, however, the LOAN AGREEMENT contains provisions for reduction of theinterest rate under certain circumstances.     This note is executed pursuant to the LOAN AGREEMENT. The LOAN AGREEMENT containsadditional terms of this Note, including, but not limited to enumerated events of default, and thegranting of liens to secure BORROWER’s performance. All capitalized terms not otherwise definedherein shall have the same meanings as set forth in the LOAN AGREEMENT.     As provided in the LOAN AGREEMENT, upon any such enumerated default, BANK may accelerate thedue date of this Note and declare all obligations set forth herein immediately due and payable,and BANK shall also have such other remedies as are described in the LOAN AGREEMENT and areprovided by law. All makers and endorsers hereby waive presentment, demand, protest and notice ofdishonor, consent to any number of extensions and renewals for any period without notice; andconsent to any substitution, exchange or release of collateral, and to the addition or releases ofany other party primarily or secondarily liable.     Executed as of the Note Date set forth above.         **Red Trail Energy, LLC**, a North Dakota limited