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

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 92 (Wednesday, June 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5626-H5627]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                  ON REPLACING THE FEDERAL INCOME TAX

  (Mr. CHRISTENSEN asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, this week on the Committee on Ways and 
Means we are looking at alternatives for making our tax system more 
clear, simple, and fair. There is no longer a question that we should 
revamp our Federal tax system.
  President Carter was right when he stated that our income tax system 
is a disgrace to the human race. In 1914 we had just 14 pages of 
Federal income tax law. Today we have over 9,000 pages. A decade ago 
the IRS commissioned a study that said that it cost $159 billion in 
compliance. Today it cost nearly $500 billion in compliance costs 
alone.
  Today one economist has estimated that last year more hours were 
spent doing taxes than were used to build a car, van, and truck in the 
United States. I look forward to working with my colleagues to design a 
Federal tax system that encourages savings and investment, rather than 
punishing those who plan for the future. [[Page H5627]] 
  Just last year it seemed that the Tax Code maybe would not be 
reformed at all. Now, this year, it is not a question of whether it is 
going to be reformed, but just when and how. We look forward to making 
sure that we have a taxpayer-friendly Code in the future.

                          ____________________
```
583 A.2d 340

#### HAKIEM JOHNSON v. NEWARK BOARD OF EDUCATION.

March 12, 1990.

This matter having been duly considered and the Court having determined that leave to appeal was improvidently granted; It is ORDERED that the within appeal be and hereby is dismissed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1




                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-28985, Form S-8 No. 333-57269 and Form S-8 No. 33-77557)
pertaining to the 1996 Stock Incentive Plan, the LHS Group Inc. 1998 Employee
Stock Purchase Plan, the LHS Group Inc. Amended and Restated Stock Incentive
Plan, and the Priority Call Management, Inc. Amended and Restated 1993 Stock
Option Plan all of LHS Group Inc. of our report dated February 17, 2000, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements of LHS Group Inc. included in
this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1999.


                                                     /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Atlanta, Georgia
March 27, 2000
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Harold Wayne Cherry v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-12-00763-CR

Trial court case number: 65798

Trial court: 23rd District Court of Brazoria County

This case was abated and remanded to the trial court on December 19, 2012. In the order 

of abatement, we directed the trial court to execute a certification of appellant’s right to appeal, 

to determine whether appellant wishes to pursue the appeal, and to determine whether appellate 

counsel should be appointed, whether appellant was intending to hire an attorney, or whether 

appellant intended to proceed pro se. The court reporter has filed a transcript of the hearing on 

our abatement order, showing that appellant wishes to pursue this appeal and that appellate 

counsel had previously been appointed. A supplemental clerk’s record has also been filed, 

containing a certification of appellant’s right to appeal indicating that appellant has the right to

appeal and an order appointing Tom Stickler to represent appellant on appeal. Accordingly, we 

REINSTATE this case on the Court’s active docket.

The reporter’s record is ORDERED to be filed within 30 days of the date of this order. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 35.2, 35.3(c).

Appellant’s brief is ORDERED to be filed within 30 days of the date the reporter’s 

record is filed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a).

Appellee’s brief, if any, is ORDERED to be filed within 30 days of the filing of 

appellant’s brief. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(b).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: _/s/ Harvey Brown

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: January 24, 2013
583 A.2d 327

#### PATRICK MANZO v. MICHAEL MANZO.

February 26, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
----

| Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. | Exhibit 12.1 |
|--------------------------|--------------|

|                                                   |   | Years Ended December 31, |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|--------|
| (in 000's)                                             |   | 2009                          |   |   | 2008 |   |   | 2007 |   |   | 2006 |   |   | 2005 |   |
|                                                   |   |                          |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|                                                   |   |                          |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Pretax income from continuing operations               |   | $                             | 9,062  |   |   | $ | 29,363 |   |   | $ | 45,102 |   |   | $ | 37,408 |   |   | $ | 32,151 |   |
| Add back fixed charges, excluding capitalized interest |   |                          | 30,800 |   |   |   | 30,128 |   |   |   | 25,808 |   |   |   | 22,545 |   |   |   | 17,980 |   |
| Income, as adjusted                                    |   | $                             | 39,862 |   |   | $ | 59,491 |   |   | $ | 70,910 |   |   | $ | 59,953 |   |   | $ | 50,131 |   |
|                                                   |   |                          |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Fixed charges:                                         |   |                          |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Interest on debt and capitalized leases                |   | $                             | 29,055 |   |   | $ | 28,554 |   |   | $ | 24,610 |   |   | $ | 21,662 |   |   | $ | 17,253 |   |
| Portion of interest cost capitalized to Inventory      |   |                          | 861    |   |   |   | 1,881 |   |   |   | 2,134 |   |   |   | 869 |   |   |   | 1,127 |   |
| Interest element of rentals                            |   |                          | 1,745  |   |   |   | 1,574 |   |   |   | 1,198 |   |   |   | 883 |   |   |   | 727 |   |
| Total fixed charges                                    |   | $                             | 31,661 |   |   | $ | 32,009 |   |   | $ | 27,942 |   |   | $ | 23,414 |   |   | $ | 19,107 |   |
|                                                   |   |                          |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                     |   |                          | 1.26   |   |   |   | 1.86 |   |   |   | 2.54 |   |   |   | 2.56 |   |   |   | 2.62 |   |

----
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL
OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In
connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of IBSG International, Inc.
for the year ended December 31, 2003, I, Geoffrey Birch, Treasurer, Chief Financial
Officer , hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief,
that:

1.       
          Such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year
          ended December 31, 2003, 2 fairly presents, in all material respects, the
          financial condition and results of operations of IBSG International, Inc.

| |  | Date: October 21, 2004BY: /S/ Geoffrey Birch
Geoffrey BirchTreasurer and Chief Financial  Officer
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# **Exhibit31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Robert N.Wildrick, certify that:

 

1.               Ihave reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc.;

 

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

 

3.               Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a)              Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)             Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

c)              Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal controls over financial reporting; and

 

5.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors:

 

a)              Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)             Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 
| Date:  June 9, 2004 | By:    |   |   /s/ Robert N. Wildrick |   |
|-------------------------------|--------|--------|-------------------------------|--------|
|                          |   |   | Robert N. Wildrick            |
|                          |   |   | Chief Executive Officer       |

 

1

----
#### Moore, Duncan & Meerscheidt v. Mrs. C. Alston.

(No. 3387.)

Appeal from Gregg County.

Otto T. Lane, counsel for appellants.

R. B. Levy and J. S. Blanton, counsel for appellee.

December 19, 1890.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

§191. *Appeal bond; sufficient if a substantial, compliance with the statute.*The appellant brought suit on a note in justice court. In that court there was a judgment that plaintiffs take nothing, and against them for the costs. They gave notice of appeal, and in due time filed an appeal bond. In the county court their appeal was dismissed, because the appeal bond was not conditioned as required by law. The bond was conditioned that they “shall prosecute their appeal with effect, and shall pay all the costs which have accrued in this court, together with that which may accrue in the county court, should they be cast in this suit.” The statute requires that the bond shall be conditioned that the appellant “ shall pay off and satisfy the judgment which may be rendered against him. [Art. 1639, R. S.] The only judgment which could be rendered against appellants in the county court, in any event, would be a judgment for the costs of both courts, and this the obligors in the appeal bond have bound themselves to pay. While not in the language of the statute, the bond is, in our opinion, in substantial compliance therewith. It follows that the court below erred in dismissing the appeal, and the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for trial *de novo*in the county court.

Reversed and remanded.
NO. 07-05-0153-CR IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL B OCTOBER 18, 2005

______________________________

MARTIN ZOR ILLA, Appellant
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_________________________________ FROM THE 179 TH DISTRIC T COURT O F HARRIS COU NTY; NO. 977,934; HON. J. MICHAEL W ILKINSON, PRESIDING

_______________________________ Memorandum Opinion

_______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. Appellant, Martin Zorilla, appeals his convi ction for posses sing a contr olled substan ce (cocaine) with intent to deliver. Pursuant to a plea of guil ty but w ithout an agree d recom mendation from the State a s to punishment, t he trial cour t found the evidence substantiated a finding of guil t and sentenced appel lant to 40 years in prison an d a $150,000 fine.1 An ders v. C alifornia, 386 U .S. 738, 744-45, 87 S.C t. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (19 67). 2 Appellant’s counsel filed a motion to wi thdraw, together w ith an Anders 1 bri ef, wherein she certified that, after dili gen tly searching the record, s he concluded that the appeal is wi thout merit. Al ong wit h her brief, appel late counsel at tached a copy of

a letter sentto appellant

informing him of counsel’s bel ief that there was no rever sible erro r and of appellant’s rig ht tofilea re spon se or bri ef pro se. By letter

dated August 29, 2005, th is court notified appe llant, upon his reques t for additional time to file a pro se brief, that the deadline for doing so w as October 17, 2005. T o dat e, appellant has neither filed a response, bri ef, or another req uest for an extension. In compl iance wit h the princip les enunciated i n Anders , appellate couns el discussed several potential areas for app eal. They involved 1) t he adequacy of the indictment, 2) the court’s ruling on appellant’smotion to suppres s, 3) the pleaincluding the admonishmen ts, the sufficiency of theevidence, a nd the pre-sente nce invest igation, 4) the voluntar iness of the pl ea, 5) in effective assis tance of counsel, and 6) the propri ety of the sentence. Counsel then ex plained why each argument l acked merit. We condu cted our ow n review of the record to assess the acc uracy of appe llat e counsel’s representations a nd to unco ver any error, r eversibl e or otherw ise, pursuant to Stafford v. State, 813 S.W .2d 503 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). Like th at of appellate cou nsel, our revi ew of the recor

d uncovered n o arguable er ror. Accordingl y, the motion to withdr aw is g ranted, and the j udgment is affirmed.

Brian Quinn Do not publish

. Chief Justice
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1306 

To modify the prohibition on recognition by United States courts of certain 

rights relating to certain marks, trade names, or commercial names. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 1, 2007 

Mr. WEXLER (for himself, Mr. FEENEY, Mr. ACKERMAN, Ms. BERKLEY, Mrs. 

BLACKBURN, Mr. BOYD of Florida, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. CANNON, Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida, Mr. KLEIN of Florida, Ms. 

ROS-LEHTINEN, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. 

WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of 

Florida, Mr. ROTHMAN, and Mr. BARROW) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To modify the prohibition on recognition by United States 

courts of certain rights relating to certain marks, trade 

names, or commercial names. 

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

3 SECTION 1. MODIFICATION OF PROHIBITION. 

4 Section 211 of the Department of Commerce and Re5 lated Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (as contained in 

6 section 101(b) of division A of Public Law 105–277; 112 

7 Stat. 2681–88) is amended— 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1306 IH

1 (1) in subsection (a)(2)— 

2 (A) by striking ‘‘by a designated national’’; 

3 and 

4 (B) by inserting before the period ‘‘that 

5 was used in connection with a business or as6 sets that were confiscated unless the original 

7 owner of the mark, trade name, or commercial 

8 name, or the bonafide successor-in-interest has 

9 expressly consented’’; 

10 (2) in subsection (b), by striking ‘‘by a des11 ignated national or its successor-in-interest’’; 

12 (3) by redesignating subsection (d) as sub13 section (e); 

14 (4) by inserting after subsection (c) the fol15 lowing: 

16 ‘‘(d) Subsections (a)(2) and (b) of this section shall 

17 apply only if the person or entity asserting the rights knew 

18 or had reason to know at the time when the person or 

19 entity acquired the rights asserted that the mark, trade 

20 name, or commercial name was the same as or substan21 tially similar to a mark, trade name, or commercial name 

22 that was used in connection with a business or assets that 

23 were confiscated.’’; and 

24 (5) in subsection (e), as so redesignated, by 

25 striking ‘‘In this section:’’ and all that follows 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1306 IH

1 through ‘‘(2) The term’’ and inserting ‘‘In this sec2 tion, the term’’. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
Exhibit 35.1

EXHIBIT 35.1  ANNUAL SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB

CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of CarMax Business Services, LLC, as Servicer pursuant to Section 3.10 of the Sale and
Servicing Agreement dated as of September 1, 2011 (the Sale and Servicing Agreement) among CarMax Auto Owner Trust 2011-2, as Issuer (the Issuer), CarMax Auto Funding LLC, as Depositor, CarMax Business Services, LLC, as
Servicer (the Servicer), and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Backup Servicer, does hereby certify that:



| | 1. | CarMax Business Services, LLC is, as of the date hereof, the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The undersigned is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Officers Certificate.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 3. | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the period beginning on March 1, 2014 and ending on February 28, 2015 and of the Servicers performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement was made
under my supervision. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Sale and Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout such period.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Capitalized terms used in this certificate and not otherwise defined herein have the meanings assigned to them in the Sale and Servicing
Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of the Servicer, has duly executed this Officers
Certificate this 22nd day of May, 2015.



CARMAX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC/s/ Thomas W. ReedyThomas W. ReedyExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
exv10w17







Exhibit 10.17









November 17, 2006




Randy Kwist

66 Schoolhouse Hill Road

Gilford, NH 3249




Dear Mr. Kwist:




     Activant Group Inc., a Delaware corporation (“Activant”), is pleased to inform you that
you are eligible to receive a retention bonus of $96,250.00 (the “Bonus”), payable in five
equal annual installments, as provided below, as a reward for your continued employment with
Activant or one of its subsidiaries:



	 	 	 	 	 
	Date of Bonus Payment	 	Amount of Bonus
	September 30, 2007
	 	 	20	%
	September 30, 2008
	 	 	20	%
	September 30, 2009
	 	 	20	%
	September 30, 2010
	 	 	20	%
	September 30, 2011
	 	 	20	%





Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event of the consummation of a Change in Control (as
defined in the Amended and Restated Activant Group Inc. 2006 Stock Incentive Plan) of
Activant, all annual installments set forth above not previously paid shall become
immediately due and payable upon such consummation, subject to the following paragraph of
this letter.




     You must be employed by Activant or one of its subsidiaries, whether as an employee,
consultant or advisor, at the time each installment is payable in order to earn and receive
such installment, but there are no other conditions to the Bonus. In the event that your
service relationship with Activant or one of its subsidiaries terminates prior to the time
any annual installment is payable, you will forfeit that and all subsequent installments.
Activant may withhold from the Bonus any such Federal, state, local or other taxes,
including applicable taxes of any jurisdiction outside the United States, as shall be
required to be withheld pursuant to any applicable law or regulation.



     You understand that the Bonus made available to you hereunder does not constitute a
guarantee of continued employment with Activant or one of its subsidiaries, and that your
service relationship with Activant or its subsidiaries is at will. As such, you or Activant
or its subsidiaries may terminate your employment at any time and for any reason or no
reason, either with or without cause or advance notice. In addition, Activant and its
subsidiaries retain the right to modify your compensation and benefits, other than this
Bonus, within their sole discretion, upon notice to you, to the fullest extent allowed by
law.



	 	 	 	 	 
	ACTIVANT SOLUTIONS INC.
	 	804 Las Cimas Parkway	 	T  512.328.2300
	 
	 	 	 	 
	
	 	Austin, TX	 	F 512.330.9273
	 
	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	78746	 	 
	 
	 
	 		 	 







 









 





     Unless otherwise determined by Activant’s Board of Directors, any payments made hereunder will
not be taken into account in computing your salary or compensation for the purposes of determining
any benefits or compensation under (i) any retirement, life insurance or other benefit plan of
Activant or (ii) any agreement between Activant and you.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Sincerely,

 	 
	 	/s/ Greg Petersen
 	 
	 	Greg Petersen,  	 
	 	Executive Vice President