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

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1559 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from income taxation 

all compensation received for active service as a member of the Armed 

Forces of the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 19, 2007 

Mr. CULBERSON (for himself, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. GARRETT of 

New Jersey, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, and Mr. WILSON of South Carolina) 

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 exclude 

from income taxation all compensation received for active 

service as a member of the Armed Forces of the United 

States. 

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 ‘‘Armed Forces Tax 

5 Relief Act of 2007’’. 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1559 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FOR COMPENSATION RECEIVED FOR 

2 ACTIVE SERVICE AS A MEMBER OF THE 

3 ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Part III of subchapter B of chap5 ter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended 

6 by inserting after section 112 the following new section: 

7 ‘‘SEC. 113. COMPENSATION RECEIVED FOR ACTIVE SERV8 ICE AS A MEMBER OF THE ARMED FORCES. 

9 ‘‘Gross income shall not include compensation re10 ceived for active service as a member of the Armed Forces 

11 of the United States. The preceding sentence shall not 

12 apply to pensions and retirement pay.’’. 

13 (b) TERMINATION OF LIMITED EXCLUSION FOR

14 COMBAT PAY.—Section 112 of such Code (relating to cer15 tain combat zone compensation of members of Armed 

16 Forces) is amended by adding at the end the following 

17 new subsection: 

18 ‘‘(e) TERMINATION.—Except for purposes of apply19 ing subtitle C, this section shall not apply to any taxable 

20 year ending after the date of the enactment of this sub21 section.’’. 

22 (c) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

23 for part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code 

24 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 

25 112 the following new item: 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1559 IH

‘‘Sec. 113. Compensation received for active service as a member of the Armed 

Forces.’’. 

1 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply to taxable years ending after the 

3 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Demond TAYLOR.

No. 2010-KK-2555.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 18, 2011.

In re State of Louisiana; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. D, Nos. 493-630, 493-601; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-1223.

Denied.

KNOLL, GUIDRY and CLARK, JJ., would grant.
#### P. W. Gallagher & Co. v. G. R. Finlay & Co.

(No. 1812.)

Appeal from Gonzales County.

Opinion by

White P. J.

§ 623. *Amendment of judgment in vacation; after appeal perfected; case stated.*Finlay & Co. recovered a judgment in justice’s court against Gallagher & Co. for $170.79. On appeal by F. & Co. to the county court the judgment was reduced to $163.27, but the county court adjudged the costs of both courts against G. & Co. F. & *548Co. gave notice of appeal, and perfected their appeal to this court by giving an appeal bond. After the appeal had been perfected, but before the transcript had been made out, G. & Co. moved the county court, in vacation, to amend or correct the judgment rendered, so as to adjudge the costs in the county court in favor of F. & Co. This motion was granted and the judgment corrected, over the protest of G. & Co., nearly one year after the rendition of the original judgment. *Held;*A court may amend and correct its judgment after the expiration of the term at which it was rendered in order to correct clerical mistakes or errors, or to add an omitted clause necessary to give it effect, where there is anything in the judgment by which to amend. [Lorance v. Marchbanks, 2 Tex. Law Rev. 44; citing Chambers v. Hodges, 3 Tex. 517; Trammell v. Trammell, 25 Tex. Sup. 261. See, also, Collins v. State, 16 Tex. Ct. App. 274.] But where an appeal has been perfected, after ,the expiration of the term at which the judgment was rendered, the jurisdiction of the appellate court fully attaches, and the lower court has no further jurisdiction over the case. [Blum v. Wettermark, 58 Tex. 125; W. & W. Con. Rep. §§ 188, 527, 674.]

March 14, 1885.

§ 624. *Costs; judgment as to erroneous.*The judgment awarding F. & Co. the costs of both courts was erroneous. [R. S. art. 1432.] The judgment is reversed and here rendered so as to award G. & Co. the costs of the county court and of this appeal.

Reversed and rendered.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Cheryl K. HAO, a.k.a. Kookie Hao, Appellant.

No. 86-5111.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 9, 1986.

Decided Jan. 9, 1987.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 17, 1987.

Jack Nordby, Minneapolis, Minn., for appellant.

Paul Murphy, Asst. U.S. Atty., Minneapolis, Minn., for appellee.

Before McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge, BRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judge, and CONMY,* District Judge.

*

 The Honorable Patrick A. Conmy, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of North Dakota, sitting by designation.

CONMY, District Judge.

Cheryl Hao appeals her conviction for mail and wire fraud and interstate transportation of stolen property. Hao challenges the sufficiency of the evidence against her.

When considering an appeal from a jury conviction, we must view the evidence which was before the jury in the light most favorable to the government, and give the government the benefit of all reasonable inferences that can logically be drawn. We must overturn the jury’s verdict only if the evidence so viewed is such that a reasonable-minded jury must have entertained a reasonable doubt as to the government’s proof of one of the essential elements of the offense. *United States v. Noibi,*780 F.2d 1419, 1421 (8th Cir.1986).

We have thoroughly reviewed the record in this case and find that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of conviction.
EXHIBIT 12.2





SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION





I, Matías I. Gaivironsky, certify that:





1.
 I have reviewed
this amendment to the annual report on Form 20-F of Cresud
S.A.C.I.F. y A (the “Company”) for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 2019;





2.
 Based on my
knowledge, this amendment to the annual report does not contain any
untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state 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.
 The Company’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 15(d)-15(e)) and internal control
over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Company and have:





a.
 Designed such
disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervisions, to
ensure that material information relating to the Company, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report
is being prepared;





b.
 Designed such
internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our
supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;





c.
 Evaluated the
effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the
end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation;





d.
 Disclosed in this
report any change in the Company’s internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the
annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely
to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over
financial reporting; and





4.
 The Company’s
other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of the
Company’s board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):





a.
 All significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information;
and





b.
 Any fraud, whether
or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the Company’s internal control
over financial reporting.








Cresud S.A.C.I.F. y ADate: January 6, 2020
By:
/s/ Matías
I. GaivironskyMatías
I. GaivironskyChief
Financial and Administrative Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          15,822
<SECURITIES>                                    11,587
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,688
<ALLOWANCES>                                       502
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,506
<PP&E>                                          13,103
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,022
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  51,514
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,974
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            83
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,630
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    51,514
<SALES>                                          7,214
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,183
<CGS>                                              715
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,770
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,863
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  16
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (201)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (69)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (132)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Michael Edward KRESSLER, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D11-2946.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 19, 2011.

Michael Edward Kressler, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition seeking a belated appeal of the judgment and sentence rendered on May 29, 2009, in Escambia County Circuit Court case numbers 2008-CF-000969-A, 2008-CF-004288-A, and 2008-CF-004925-A, is granted. Upon issuance of mandate, a copy of this opinion shall be furnished to the clerk of the lower tribunal for treatment as a notice of appeal. If petitioner qualifies for the appointment of counsel at public expense, the lower tribunal is directed to appoint counsel to represent him in the belated appeal authorized by this opinion.

BENTON, C.J., VAN NORTWICK and SWANSON, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 15.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Registration Statements (Form S-8 No. 333-102605 and Form S-8 No.333-126889) pertaining to the Employee Stock Option Plan for Employees and the 2004 Employee Stock Option Plan for Employees of United Microelectronics Corporation and subsidiaries
(the Company) of our reports dated May 4, 2007, with respect to the audited consolidated financial statements of the Company, the Company managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and
the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of the Company, included in its Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December 31, 2006.



|                 
|-----------------
|/s/ Ernst & Young
|Ernst & Young    
|Taipei, Taiwan,  
|Republic of China
|May 4, 2007      



1
110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1512 

AN ACT 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to provide 

for compensation to States incarcerating undocumented 

aliens charged with a felony or two or more misdemeanors. 

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

•HR 1512 EH

1 SECTION 1. ASSISTANCE FOR STATES INCARCERATING UN2 DOCUMENTED ALIENS CHARGED WITH CER3 TAIN CRIMES. 

4 Section 241(i)(3)(A) of the Immigration and Nation5 ality Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(i)(3)(A)) is amended by inserting 

6 ‘‘charged with or’’ before ‘‘convicted’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 8, 2008. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 1512 

AN ACT 

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to 

two or more misdemeanors. undocumented aliens charged with a felony or provide for compensation to States incarcerating
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1


                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                     STATE OF
NAME                                                              INCORPORATION                      ASSUMED NAMES
------------------------------------------------------     ---------------------------    ----------------------------------
<S>                                                        <C>                            <C>
Noble Component Technologies, Inc.*                                 Michigan
Monroe Engineering Products, Inc.                                   Michigan
Cass River Coatings, Inc.*                                          Michigan                  Vassar Industries
Skandy Corp.                                                        Michigan
Utilase Production Process, Inc.                                    Michigan
Noble Metal Forming, Inc.+                                          Michigan
Noble Metal Processing, Inc.                                        Michigan
Noble Land Holdings, Inc.                                           Michigan
Noble Canada, Inc.*                                             Ontario, Canada
Noble Canada II, Inc.*                                          Ontario, Canada
Tiercon Plastics, Inc.*                                         Ontario, Canada
Tiercon Coatings, Inc.*                                         Ontario, Canada
Noble Metal Processing-Midwest, Inc.+                               Michigan
Noble Canada Holdings Limited*                                Nova Scotia, Canada
Noble Canada Holdings II Limited*                             Nova Scotia, Canada
Noble Components & Systems, Inc.                                    Michigan
Noble Manufacturing Group, Inc.                                     Michigan
Noble Metal Processing Canada, Inc.                             Ontario, Canada
Tiercon Industries, Inc.*                                       Ontario, Canada
Noble Logistic Services, Inc.                                      California
Noble Logistic Services, Inc.                                       Delaware
Noble Logistic Services, Inc.                                       Michigan
DSI Holdings, Inc.                                                   Texas
Noble Holdings, Inc.                                                Michigan
Noble Metal Processing -- Kentucky, LLC                             Michigan
PECO Manufacturing, Inc.                                            Florida
Noble Components Systems, Inc.                                      Michigan
</TABLE>

-----------
* Former subsidiaries of the Company which were disposed of in connection with
  the Tiercon Sale.

+ Former subsidiaries of the Company which were disposed of in connection with
  the SET Sale.
#### Maxwell *v.*Maxwell.

Gilbert, J.

The exception is to a judgment awarding temporary alimony of $15 per month for the support of the wife and two .children, aged 7 and 9 years. No attorney’s fees were awarded. The evidence on some of the material facts was in conflict. Error is also assigned on the refusal of the court to permit the defendant husband to answer the question, propounded by his counsel: “Is it not a fact that your wife left you and refused to live with you, and that she still refuses to live with you?” *Held:*

1. The assignment of error on the rejection of evidence will be considered abandoned, because it is not mentioned in the brief of plaintiff in error.

*537No. 6576.

June 13, 1928.

Temporary alimony. Before Judge Sutton. Habersham superior court. January 28, 1928.

*Ernest J. Eimsey,*for plaintiff in error.

*8cm Kimzey,*contra.

2. Under the evidence there was no abuse of discretion and the court did not err. *Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 17, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-51001

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CARLOS GONZALEZ-ANTUNA,

Defendant-Appellant.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:04-CR-1021-ALL-KC

--------------------

Before KING, Chief Judge, and DeMOSS and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Carlos GonzalezAntuna raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a

prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense, and by United

States v. Pineiro, 377 F.3d 464, 465-66 (5th Cir. 2004), petition

for cert. filed (U.S. July 14, 2004) (No. 04-5263), which held

that Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), does not
No. 04-51001

-2-

apply to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The

Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
|                           | South Jersey Gas      Company |                            |
|--------------------------------|-------------------------------|---------------------------------|
|                           |                          |                            |   |
| Date:       March 4, 2009 | By:                           | /s/ David      A. Kindlick |   |
|                           |                          | David      A. Kindlick          |   |
|                           |                          | Chief      Financial Officer    |   |
|                           |                          |                            |   |

----
Exhibit (4)(j)



 Exhibit 4(j) 
 Form of Policy Endorsement (Fund Facilitation Fee) 








			
	

	  	 Home Office located at:
 4 Manhattanville
Road, Purchase, New York 10577
 Adm. Office located at:
 4333 Edgewood Road N.E. Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52499
 (319) 355-8511


 AMENDATORY ENDORSEMENT 
 The policy to which this Amendatory Endorsement is attached is amended to include the addition of the following Subaccounts: 
  

				
	 	  	Fund Facilitation Fee	 
	 AllianceBernstein VPS Balanced Wealth Strategy Portfolio
	  	0.20	%
	 Franklin Templeton VIP Founding Funds Allocation Fund
	  	0.15	%

 If any of the above Subaccounts are elected, a Fund Facilitation Fee would be charged in addition to any policy
fees and charges, and will be used in the calculation of net investment factor as described in the Accumulation Units and Variable Annuity Units provisions of the policy. The Fund Facilitation Fee will only be charged when money is allocated to one
of the above Subaccounts and is guaranteed not to change during the life of the policy. The Fund Facilitation Fee is an annualized percentage taken from the daily net asset values of a fund share held in that Subaccount. 
 This endorsement takes effect and expires concurrently with the policy to which it is attached and is subject to all the terms and conditions of the policy not
inconsistent herewith. 
 Signed for us at our home office. 
  

									
		 	 /s/ Craig D. Vermie
	 		  	 /s/ Peter G. Kunkel
	  	
		 	SECRETARY	 		  	PRESIDENT	  	

  


					
	AE 1288 0608 (NY)
<PAGE>




                                                                    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 Land O'Lakes, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 30, 2005 (the "Report"), I, John E. Gherty,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date:  March 30, 2005
                                           By: /s/ John Gherty
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               John E. Gherty
                                               President
                                               and Chief Executive Officer



                                       3