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



EXHIBIT 21.1


SUBSIDIARIES OF GEVITY HR, INC. as of DECEMBER 31,
2005


|           |     |                               |  |                                    |  |           
|---------- | --- | ----------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------- |  | ----------
|           |     | State or Jurisdiction of     
|Subsidiary |     | Incorporation or Organization
|           |     |                              
|           | 1.  |                               |  | Gevity HR, L.P.*                   |  | Delaware  
|           | 2.  |                               |  | Gevity HR II, L.P.*                |  | Delaware  
|           | 3.  |                               |  | Gevity HR III, L.P.                |  | Delaware  
|           | 4.  |                               |  | Gevity HR IV, L.P.*                |  | Delaware  
|           | 5.  |                               |  | Gevity HR V, L.P.*                 |  | Delaware  
|           | 6.  |                               |  | Gevity HR VI, L.P.*                |  | Delaware  
|           | 7.  |                               |  | Gevity HR VII, L.P.*               |  | Delaware  
|           | 8.  |                               |  | Gevity HR VIII, L.P.*              |  | Delaware  
|           | 9.  |                               |  | Gevity HR IX, L.P.*                |  | Delaware  
|           | 10. |                               |  | Gevity HR X, L.P.*                 |  | Delaware  
|           | 11. |                               |  | Gevity HR XI, LLC*                 |  | New Mexico
|           | 12. |                               |  | Gevity HR XII Corp.*               |  | Florida   
|           | 13. |                               |  | Gevity XIV, LLC*                   |  | Delaware  
|           | 14. |                               |  | Staff Leasing, LLC*                |  | Delaware  
|           | 15. |                               |  | Concorda Insurance Company Limited |  | Bermuda   
|           | 16. |                               |  | Gevity Insurance Agency, Inc.      |  | Delaware  






|  |                                            
|- | -------------------------------------------
|* | Also does business under the name Gevity.
#### STATE ex rel. Rogers ATKINS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-2762.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 4, 2011.

In re Atkins, Rogers; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Morehouse, 4th Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 82384; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 46,-087-KH.

Denied. Untimely and repetitive. La. C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; *State ex rel. Glover v. State,*93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189; cf. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(D).
#### Harold BROOKS v. LOUISIANA DEPT. OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONS.

No. 2011-C-1977.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 14, 2011.

In re Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of St. Landry, 27th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 10-3450-A; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 11-71.

Denied.

VICTORY and GUIDRY, JJ., would grant.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Malcolm EXCELL, a/k/a Rush, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-7414.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 15, 2000.

Decided Jan. 16, 2001.

*238Malcolm Excell, pro se. Robert Edward Bradenham, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, VA, for appellee.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Malcolm Excell appeals from the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000) motion as untimely, and the court’s order denying reconsideration. We dismiss the appeal of the underlying order for lack of jurisdiction because Excell’s notice of appeal was not timely filed, and affirm the denial of reconsideration.

Parties are accorded sixty days after the entry of the district court’s final judgment to note an appeal, Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” *Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections,*434 U.S. 257, 264, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978) (quoting *United States v. Robinson,*361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960)).

The district court’s order was entered on the docket on July 12, 2000. Excell’s notice of appeal was filed on October 3, 2000. Because Excell failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

Excell also appeals from the district court order denying his Rule 60(b) motion seeking reconsideration of the court’s prior order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000) motion.* We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no abuse of discretion. *In re Burnley,*988 F.2d 1, 3 (4th Cir.1992). Accordingly, although we grant Excell’s motion for clarification, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *United States v. Excell,*No. CR-95-49-4; CA-00-60-4 (E.D.Va. July 12, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.*

*

 An appeal from the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion is reviewed only with respect to the grounds set forth in Rule 60(b). The merits of the underlying order are not reviewable where, as in this case, the appellant failed to timely appeal the underlying order. *In re Burnley,*988 F.2d 1, 3 (4th Cir.1992).
**Exhibit 32**

 

**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 Gevity HR, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2008,as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the datehereof (the “Report”), I, Michael J. Lavington, chief executive officer of theCompany and I, Garry J. Welsh, chief financial officer of the Company, eachcertify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)          the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

(2)          the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.

 

 
| Dated: April 30,  2009 |   | /s/ Michael J.  Lavington |
|-----------------------------|--------|---------------------------|
|                        |   | Michael J. Lavington      |
|                        |   | Chief Executive Officer   |
|                        |   |                      |
|                        |   |                      |
|                        |   | /s/ Garry J. Welsh        |
| Dated: April 30,  2009 |   | Garry J. Welsh            |
|                        |   | Chief Financial Officer   |

 

----
#### Stanley G. VICKERY v. VENTURE LOGISTICS.

No. 2011-C-2378.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 16, 2011.

In re Venture Transport Logistics LLC; — Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review Office of Workers’ Compensation District 2, No. 10-01782; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. 11-329.

Denied.
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 Defense

###### Department of the Army

# AGENCY:

Department of the Army, DoD.

# SUMMARY:

The Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command (SDDC) is providing notice that it is releasing an interim change to the MFTURP No. 1 on October 1, 2010. The interim change adds Item 180, Rail In-Transit Visibility (Rail ITV) Reporting, to Section C of the MFTURP No. 1.

# ADDRESSES:

                        Submit comments to Publication and Rules Manager, Strategic Business Directorate, Business Services, 1 Soldier Way, Building 1900W, ATTN: SDDC-OPM, Scott AFB, 62225. Request for additional information may be sent by e-mail to:                         *chad.t.privett@us.army.mil*                         or                         *george.alie@us.army.mil*.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Chad Privett, (618) 220-6901, or Mr. George Alie, (618) 220-5870.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

*Reference:*                     Military Freight Traffic Unified Rules Publications (MFTURP) No. 1.                

*Background:*                     The MFTURP No. 1 governs the purchase of surface freight transportation in the Continental United States (CONUS) by DoD using Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) exempt transportation service contracts.                

Rail ITV data is now purchased from a contractor, along with rail ITV services. Some of the data is transmitted to the Global Tracking Network (GTN), but most of it resides in the contractor's database and is accessible only using the contractor's software. When contracts are rebid, the former contractor is tasked to transfer recent data to the new contractor. Section C, Item 180, ensures this transfer takes place.

*Miscellaneous:*                     This publication, as well as the other SDDC publications, can be accessed via the SDDC Web site at:                     *http://www.sddc.army.mil/​Public/​Global%20Cargo%20Distribution/​Domestic/​Publications/​*.                

Henry Brooks,

Chief, SDDC, G9, Business Execution.

[FR Doc. 2010-24589 Filed 9-29-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710-08-P
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6746
ERNEST WILLIAMS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus LAURIE BESSINGER, Warden; CHARLES M. CONDON, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-95-1688-3-18BC) Submitted: November 21, 1996 Decided: December 3, 1996 Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ernest Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* For the purposes of this appeal we assume that the date Appellant wrote on the notice of appeal is the earliest date it would have been submitted to prison authorities. See Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988). 2 PER CURIAM: Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have thirty days within which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).The district court entered its order on April 2, 1996; Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on May 3, 1996. Appellant's failure to file a timely notice of appeal * or to obtain either an extension or a reopening of the appeal period leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant's appeal. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 192 (Tuesday, October 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 61417]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24909]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Bridger-Teton National Forest Resource Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Bridger-Teton Resource Advisory Committee will meet in 
Cokeville, Wyoming. The committee is meeting as authorized under the 
Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 110-
343) and in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The 
purpose is to hold the first meeting of the newly formed committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held on October 25, 2010, and will begin at 
6 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Cokeville Town Hall, 110 
Pine Street, Cokeville, WY. Written comments should be sent to Tracy 
Hollingshead, Bridger-Teton National Forest, 308 Hwy 189 North, 
Kemmerer, WY 83101. Comments may also be sent via e-mail to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#73071b1c1f1f1a1d14001b1612173315005d1516175d0600"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="dca8b4b3b0b0b5b2bbafb4b9bdb89cbaaff2bab9b8f2a9af">[email protected]</span></a>, or via facsimile to 307-828-5135.
    All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are 
placed in the record and are available for public inspection and 
copying. The public may inspect comments received at Bridger-Teton 
National Forest, Hwy 189 North, Kemmerer, WY 83101. Visitors are 
encouraged to call ahead to 307-877-4415 to facilitate entry into the 
building.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tracy Hollingshead, RAC coordinator, 
USDA, Bridger-Teton National Forest, Hwy 189 North, Kemmerer, WY 83101; 
(307) 877-4415; E-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e89c8087848481868f9b808d898ca88e9bc68e8d8cc69d9b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="add9c5c2c1c1c4c3cadec5c8ccc9edcbde83cbc8c983d8de">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) 
may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 
between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through 
Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. The 
following business will be conducted: (1) Introductions of all 
committee members and Forest Service personnel. (2) Selection of a 
chairperson by the committee members. (3) Receive materials explaining 
the process for considering and recommending Title II projects; and (4) 
Public Comment. Persons who wish to bring related matters to the 
attention of the Committee may file written statements with the 
Committee staff before or after the meeting.

    Dated: September 29, 2010.
Tracy Hollingshead,
Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-24909 Filed 10-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. DISTRICT NO. 9, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, AFL-CIO.

No. 16410.

United States Court of Appeals Eighth Circuit.

Feb. 11, 1960.

- Thomas J. McDermott, Assoc. Gen. Counsel, and Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, NLRB, Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

PER CURIAM.

Order of National Labor Relations Board enforced, on petition for enforcement and stipulation filed with Board.
April 11, 1988

No. 87-1285.

#### Udolf *v.*Plan and Zoning Commission of the Town of West Hartford et al.

Appeal from Super. Ct. Conn., Hartford/New Britain Jud. Dist., dismissed under this Court’s Rule 53.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1704 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1704

              For the relief of Robert and Verda Shatusky.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 26, 2007

  Mr. Stupak introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
              For the relief of Robert and Verda Shatusky.

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

SECTION 1. ENTITLEMENT TO SUPPLEMENTAL ANNUITY, SURVIVOR BENEFITS, AND 
              OTHER PAYMENTS UNDER RAILROAD RETIREMENT ACT OF 1974.

    (a) In General.--For purposes of the Railroad Retirement Act of 
1974 (45 U.S.C. 231 et seq.), Robert Shatusky, of Menominee, Michigan, 
shall be deemed to have had a current connection with the railroad 
industry at the time that his annuity under section 2(a)(1) of such Act 
began to accrue.
    (b) Applicability.--Subsection (a) shall apply to any month that 
begins more than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 2. PAYMENT OF PAST SUPPLEMENTAL ANNUITY BENEFITS.

    The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of any money in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Robert Shatusky of Menominee, 
Michigan, a sum that equals the total amount of any supplemental 
annuity payments to which Robert Shatusky would have been entitled 
under section 2(b) of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 
231a(b)) if section 1(a) of this Act applied to the period beginning on 
the date on which his annuity under section 2(a)(1) of the Railroad 
Retirement Act of 1974 (45 U.S.C. 231a(a)(1)) began to accrue and 
ending on the last day of the month preceding the 1st month to which 
section 1(a) of this Act applies.

SEC. 3. LIMITATION ON AGENT AND ATTORNEY FEES.

    It shall be unlawful for an amount exceeding 10 percent of the 
payment required by section 2 to be paid to or received by any agent or 
attorney for any service rendered in connection with the payment. Any 
person who violates this section shall be guilty of an infraction and 
shall be subject to a fine in the amount provided in title 18, United 
States Code.
                                 <all>
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

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

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

 October 3, 2019

s0926

Order 

Clerk

October 3, 2019

159619

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 159619

COA: 340377

Macomb CC: 2016-000712-FC

BRAD STEPHEN HAYNIE,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 16, 2019 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED, limited to the 

issues: (1) whether assault and battery is a necessarily included offense of assault with 

intent to commit murder; and if so (2) whether a rational view of the evidence in this case 

could support a conviction for assault and battery. The time allowed for oral argument 

shall be 20 minutes for each side. MCR 7.314(B)(1).

The Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan and the Criminal Defense 

Attorneys of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups 

interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court 

for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
Exhibit 99.2

         Certification of Chief Financial Officer of FirstBank NW Corp.
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


The undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and in connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB, that:

     o    The report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) and
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and


     o    The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the company's financial condition and results of
          operations.


/s/ LARRY K. MOXLEY
-----------------------------
Chief Financial Officer


Dated:  June 9, 2004
#### J. P. Vance v. D. B. Hartzell.

(No. 3884.)

Appeal from Navarro County.

Croft & Croft, counsel for appellant.

McClellan & Prince, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

Davidson, J.

§ 282. *Contract; allegations held sufficient to show an executed.*This was a contract entered into .between the parties in regard to the sale and purchase of a tombstone; appellee having executed his note for the price of same, and the same had been purchased and transported from *483Italy, and was to be erected in a certain grave-yard named in the contract. After appellant, in pursuance of the contract, had ordered the tombstone, appellee came to him, and notified him that his brother had bought another tombstone, and wanted appellant to release him from the contract. This appellanfideclined to do, on the ground that he had already purchased the monument, and all that was left to be done to complete the contract was to letter and engrave it on its arrival. The parties then agreed that appellee would take the tombstone when it arrived, and try and sell it, and that appellant should on its arrival put it up in his marble-yard, instead of the grave-yard, and not put any lettering or engraving on it, but hold it in his marble-yard as the property of and subject to the orders and sale of appellee; in which event, that is, upon its being brought over and put up in the marble-yard, appellee was to be liable for the amount due upon the original contract. The monument arrived, and appellant erected it, as he obligated he would do, in his marble-yard. Appellee refused to pay the note, and appellant sued him upon it. In his supplemental petition appellant set up all the facts as above stated. Appellee excepted to the sufficiency of the amended petition, upon the ground that it showed an executory contract, and a suit upon an executory contract, and the court sustained the exception, and dismissed the supplemental petition, and gave judgment in favor of appellee. This was error. The contract was not an executory contract, but an executed one, whenever it was shown that appellant, as was alleged in the petition, had complied with his contact, and that nothing else remained to be done by him to complete'its execution. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

December 22, 1891.

Reversed and remanded.