alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 1703 

AN ACT 

To prevent and reduce trafficking in persons. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•S 1703 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Trafficking in Persons 

3 Accountability Act of 2008’’. 

4 SEC. 2. JURISDICTION IN CERTAIN TRAFFICKING OF5 FENSES. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 77 of title 18, United 

7 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol8 lowing: 

9 ‘‘§ 1596. Additional jurisdiction in certain trafficking 

10 offenses 

11 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—In addition to any domestic or 

12 extra-territorial jurisdiction otherwise provided by law, the 

13 courts of the United States have extra-territorial jurisdic14 tion over any offense (or any attempt or conspiracy to 

15 commit an offense) under section 1581, section 1583, sec16 tion 1584, section 1589, section 1590, or section 1591 of 

17 this title if— 

18 ‘‘(1) an alleged offender is a national of the 

19 United States or an alien lawfully admitted for per20 manent residence (as those terms are defined in sec21 tion 101 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 

22 U.S.C. 1101)); or 

23 ‘‘(2) an alleged offender is present in the 

24 United States, irrespective of the nationality of the 

25 alleged offender. 
3 

•S 1703 ES

1 ‘‘(b) LIMITATION ON PROSECUTIONS OF OFFENSES

2 PROSECUTED IN OTHER COUNTRIES.—No prosecution 

3 may be commenced against a person under this section 

4 if a foreign government, in accordance with jurisdiction 

5 recognized by the United States, has prosecuted or is pros6 ecuting such person for the conduct constituting such of7 fense, except upon the approval of the Attorney General 

8 or the Deputy Attorney General (or a person acting in 

9 either such capacity), which function of approval may not 

10 be delegated.’’. 

11 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

12 at the beginning of chapter 77 of title 18, United States 

13 Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘1596. Additional jurisdiction in certain trafficking offenses.’’. 

Passed the Senate October 1 (legislative day, September 17), 2008. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 1703 

AN ACT 

To prevent and reduce trafficking in persons.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________

No. 95-4192NE

_____________

In the matter of: JAS Enterprises, Inc., *

*

Debtor, *

____________________ *

*

In the matter of: JAS Enterprises, Inc., *

*

Debtor-Appellant, *

*

Richard J. Butler, Chapter 7 Trustee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the District of

Appellant, * Nebraska.

*

v. * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

William Stock; Janette Stock; *

*

Interested Parties-Appellees,*

*

Unsecured Creditors Committee, *

*

Interested Party. *

_____________

 Submitted: May 19, 1997

Filed: May 30, 1997

_____________

Before McMILLIAN, ROSS, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

_____________

PER CURIAM.
-2-

JAS Enterprises, Inc. (JAS) appeals the district court's judgment that allowed an

administrative expense claim filed by William and Janette Stock. On appeal, JAS

contends (1) the bankruptcy court's finding that JAS received an actual tangible benefit

is clearly erroneous, (2) the bankruptcy court improperly measured the administrative

expenses, and (3) the Stocks are estopped from obtaining administrative expenses by

failing to mitigate their damages. The district court carefully considered these issues,

and having reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we agree with its analysis. We

thus affirm for the reasons stated in the district court's memorandum opinion. See 8th

Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

PAUL CHARLES,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-1447

[December 1, 2021]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Scott Suskauer, Judge; 

L.T. Case No. 502013CF003225AXXXMB.

Paul Charles, Perry, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Luke R. Napodano, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

 Paul Charles appeals an order summarily denying his multi-claim 

motion filed under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse 

and remand as to one claim regarding appellant’s rejection of a plea offer. 

See Alcorn v. State, 121 So. 3d 419 (Fla. 2013).

 Appellant was charged by indictment with first degree murder with a 

weapon, attempted first degree murder with a weapon, and armed burglary 

of a dwelling. The state argued first degree murder as premeditated or 

under a felony-murder theory. 

 A jury found appellant guilty as charged on the first two counts, and of 

the lesser included offense of armed trespass for the third count. The trial 

court sentenced appellant to consecutive terms of life in prison for the 

murder, thirty years for attempted murder, and five years for armed 

trespass.

 In his motion for postconviction relief, appellant alleged trial counsel 

failed to advise him that attempted second degree murder was a qualifying 
2

felony for first degree felony murder and that this omission caused him to 

reject a plea to a forty-year term for second degree murder. We accept the 

state’s concession that the record does not refute this legally sufficient 

claim and that an evidentiary hearing is required. See Brinson v. State, 18 

So. 3d 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009).

 On remand, the trial court shall also evaluate appellant’s related claim 

that counsel misadvised him that any homicide conviction would be for no 

more than second degree murder and would likely result in a sentence of 

twenty-five to fifty years because of appellant’s lack of criminal history. 

We otherwise affirm.

 Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

MAY, GERBER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXHIBIT 11



NORTH PITTSBURGH SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES



Statement of Computation of Earnings per Share

(Amounts in Thousands  Except Per Share Data)



|                                           |  |                                    |        |      |   |       
|------------------------------------------ |  | ---------------------------------- | ------ | ---- | - | ------
|                                           |  | For the Three MonthsEnded March 31
|                                           |  | 2004                               |        | 2003
|Net income                                 |  | $                                  | 4,397  |      | $ | 3,478 
|                                           |  |                                    |        |      |   |       
|Weighted average common shares outstanding |  |                                    | 15,005 |      |   | 15,005
|                                           |  |                                    |        |      |   |       
|Basic and diluted earnings per share       |  | $                                  | .29    |      | $ | .23   
|                                           |  |                                    |        |      |   |
#### Carl R. JACKSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 44418.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 21, 1971.

Frank B. Kelley, San Antonio, for appellant.

Ted Butler, Dist. Atty., Robert H. Spicer and Lucien B. Campbell, Asst. Dist. Atty., San Antonio, and Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

MORRISON, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction for burglary with the punishment being assessed at five (5) years.

Appellant having waived trial by jury, entered a plea of guilty before the court.

His sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for probation.

Where the motion for probation has been presented to the trial court, it rests within the sound discretion of the court as to whether probation should be granted and such decision is not appealable. Trautschold v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 466 S.W.2d 586, Martin v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 452 S.W.2d 481, and cases there cited.

The judgment is affirmed.
| Skip to Content*Release Date: March 8, 2007*Release dates |  Coded tables |  Historical dataCurrent release |  Screen reader |  PDF (450 KB)**F.211 Municipal Securities and Loans** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                            7349
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     2469
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                       1202
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 11069
<PP&E>                                           16334
<DEPRECIATION>                                    3544
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   24065
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1443
<BONDS>                                            634
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          1
<COMMON>                                            63
<OTHER-SE>                                       21924
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     24065
<SALES>                                           8049
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  8049
<CGS>                                             3108
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     3108
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  2186
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  61
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   3080
<INCOME-TAX>                                       175
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               2905
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      2905
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .18
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .18
        

</TABLE>
WAIVER OF BENEFITS


 


This Waiver of Benefits (this “Waiver”)
is entered into as of the 30th day of December, 2013, by and among First Reliance Bancshares, Inc., a South Carolina corporation
(the “Company”), First Reliance Bank, a bank chartered under South Carolina law and a wholly owned subsidiary
of the Corporation (the “Bank” and together with the Company, the “Employer”),
and F. R. Saunders, Jr. (the “Executive”).


 


WHEREAS, the Employer and the Executive
entered into that certain Employment Agreement, dated as of 11/24/2006, attached hereto as Exhibit A (the “Employment
Agreement”);


 


WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2.2(a)
of the Employment Agreement, the Employer agreed to pay or cause to be paid the Executive’s initiation and membership assessments
and dues in a country club of the Executive’s choice (the “Benefits”); and


 


WHEREAS, the Employer desires to
cease providing initiation and membership assessments and dues in country clubs to its employees and any reinstatement is at the
discretion of the Chief Executive Officer. The Executive voluntarily agrees to waive and relinquish the right to continue to receive
the Benefits under Section 2.2(a) of the Employment Agreement.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration
of the promises, and the mutual covenants and agreements contained in the Employment Agreement, and other good and valuable consideration,
the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:


 


1.The
Executive hereby voluntarily waives and relinquishes the right to continue to receive the Benefits set forth under Section 2.2(a)
of the Employment Agreement and hereby waives and relinquishes the right to assert any and all claims relating to the Benefits.


 


2.Except
as provided in Section 1, above, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


 


3.This
Waiver may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which together
shall constitute one instrument binding on the parties, notwithstanding that both parties are not signatories to the original
or the same counterpart. This Waiver shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective
successors and assigns.


 


4.This
Waiver shall be governed by and construed, interpreted and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of South Carolina,
notwithstanding its conflicts of laws, principles or any other rule, regulation or principle that would result in the application
of another state’s laws. 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each party has
caused this Waiver to be executed as of the date first set forth above.


 


	EXECUTIVE	 	FIRST RELIANCE BANCSHARES, INC.
	 	 	 	 
	/s/ F. R. Saunders, Jr	 	/s/ Jeffrey A. Paolucci
	 	 	By: 	Jeffrey A. Paolucci
	 	 	Its:	CFO
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	FIRST RELIANCE BANK
	 	 	 	 
	 	 	/s/ Jeffrey A. Paolucci
	 	 	By: 	Jeffrey A. Paolucci
	 	 	Its:	CFO





 






    	 



    	 



    

 





Exhibit A


 


Employment Agreement


(Omitted)
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1251 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1251

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the tax 
              treatment of horses, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 30, 2007

 Mr. McConnell (for himself, Mrs. Lincoln, and Mr. Bunning) introduced 
the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 
                               on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the tax 
              treatment of horses, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Equine Equity Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. 3-YEAR DEPRECIATION FOR ALL RACE HORSES.

    (a) In General.--Clause (i) of section 168(e)(3)(A) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 3-year property) is amended to read 
as follows:
                            ``(i) any race horse,''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to property placed in service on or after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.

SEC. 3. REDUCTION OF HOLDING PERIOD TO 12 MONTHS FOR PURPOSES OF 
              DETERMINING WHETHER HORSES ARE SECTION 1231 ASSETS.

    (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 1231(b)(3) of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to definition of livestock) is 
amended by striking ``and horses''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2007.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-03-1999
<CASH>                                          10,527
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   76,828
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (4,162)
<INVENTORY>                                     40,013
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               127,001
<PP&E>                                         103,498
<DEPRECIATION>                                (59,270)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 191,759
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          190,348
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           117
<OTHER-SE>                                     (5,830)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   191,759
<SALES>                                        185,162
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               286,602
<CGS>                                          139,186
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  228,875
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                70,652
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,581
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (27,206)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,150
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (36,356)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (36,356)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       3.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.12


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 10.4.2



 Exhibit 10.4.2 
  
 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE 
 VISUAL NETWORKS, INC. 
 2000 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 
  
 W  I  T  N  E  S  S  E  T  H: 
  
 WHEREAS, Section 7(f) of the Visual Networks, Inc. 2000 Stock
Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) authorizes the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of Visual Networks, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Corporation”), to amend the Plan at any time; and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Board now finds it desirable and in the best interests of
the Corporation to amend the Plan to reduce the number of shares of Common Stock by 2,775,000, so that the aggregate number of shares that may be issued under the Plan is 4,225,000. 
  
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is amended, effective as of April 21, 2004, as follows: 
  
 First and Only Change 
  
 The first sentence of Section 4 of the Plan is amended in its entirety to
read as follows: 
  
 “Subject to adjustments
as provided in Section 7(d) of the Plan, the shares of Common Stock that may be issued on or after April 21, 2004, with respect to Awards granted under the Plan shall not exceed an aggregate of 4,225,000 shares of Common Stock.” 
  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Amendment No. 2 to
be executed by its duly authorized officer this 21st day of April, 2004. 
  

									
	 ATTEST:
	 	 	 	 VISUAL NETWORKS, INC.

					
	By:	 	 /s/ Nancy A. Spangler
	 	 	 	By:	 	 /s/ Lawrence S. Barker
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos. 333-132229, 333-147625, 333-120816 on Form S-8 of our report datedJune 29, 2010 relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of Mitel Networks Corporation (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph regarding the change in methodfor certain fair value measurements and disclosures as of May 1, 2008 and the change in method of accounting for uncertainty in income taxes as of May 1, 2007) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Mitel Networks Corporation forthe year ended April 30, 2010. 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

Independent Registered Chartered Accountants 

Licensed Public Accountants 

Ottawa, Canada

July 27, 2010
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULES 13a-14(a) AND 15d-14(a) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
Christopher D. Hughes, Chief Executive Officer of Lancer Corporation, certify that:

1.     I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2003 of Lancer Corporation;

2.     Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.     Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



5.     The
registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's
auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



|Date: June 28, 2004                                                    |  | 
|---------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|/s/CHRISTOPHER D. HUGHESChristopher D. Hughes, Chief Executive Officer |  | 

---



QuickLinks