alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**EXHIBIT
      21.1**




LIST
      OF
      SUBSIDIARIES




Amboy
      Bus
      Co., Inc.


Atlantic-Chittenango
      Real Property Corp.


Atlantic-Conn.
      Transit, Inc.


Atlantic
      Escorts Inc.


Atlantic
      Express Coachways, Inc.


Atlantic
      Express of L.A. Inc.


Atlantic
      Express of Missouri Inc.


Atlantic
      Express of New Jersey, Inc.


Atlantic
      Express of Pennsylvania, Inc.


Atlantic-Hudson,
      Inc.


Atlantic
      Paratrans, Inc.


Atlantic
      Paratrans of NYC, Inc.


Atlantic
      Paratrans of Pennsylvania, Inc.


Atlantic
      Queens Bus Corp.


Block
      7932, Inc.


Brookfield
      Transit Inc.


Central
      New York Reorganization Corp.


Courtesy
      Bus Co., Inc.


GVD
      Leasing Co., Inc.


180
      Jamaica Corp.


Jersey
      Bus Sales, Inc.


Jersey
      Business Land Co., Inc.


Merit
      Transportation Corp.


Metro
      Affiliates, Inc.


Metropolitan
      Escort Service, Inc.


Midway
      Leasing Inc.


Staten
      Island Bus, Inc.


Temporary
      Transit Service, Inc.


201
      West
      Sotello Realty, Inc.


Wrightholm
      Bus Line, Inc.


Atlantic
      Transit, Corp.


Airport
      Services, Inc.


Atlantic
      Express New England, Inc.


Atlantic
      Express of California, Inc.


Atlantic
      Express of Illinois, Inc.


Atlantic
      Express of South Carolina, Inc.


Atlantic
      Express of Upstate New York, Inc.


Atlantic
      Paratrans of Arizona, Inc.


Fiore
      Bus
      Service, Inc.


Groom
      Transportation, Inc.


James
      McCarty Limo Service, Inc.


K.
      Corr,
      Inc.


McIntire
      Transportation, Inc.


Mountain-Atlantic,
      Inc.


R.
      Fiore
      Bus Service, Inc.


Raybern
      Bus Service, Inc.


Raybern
      Capital Corp.


Raybern
      Equity Corp.


Robert
      L.
      McCarthy & Son, Inc.


Transcomm,
      Inc.


Winsale,
      Inc.
#### G. W. Parsons et al. v. R. O. Crawford.

(No. 3429.)

Appeal from Dallas County.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 669. *Appeal bond from justice’s court; sufficient description of judgment in.*Crawford sued Parsons and Grimmett in justice’s court.of precinct No. 7, of Dallas county, before M. Myers, justice of the peace, “upon, an account for $150 for trespass to private property, to wit, the unlawful driving the plaintiff’s mule from its range, keeping it in a pen, and compelling it to jump a fence and break its leg, from the effects of which it died.”' Crawford recovered judgment, and Parsons and Grimmett appealed to the county court, where their appeal was dismissed upon the ground that the description of the judgment in their appeal bond was insufficient and incorrect. The appeal bond described the judgment as follows: “On the 2-i-th day of November, 1883, in justice’s court of said county, precinct No. 7, M. Myers, J. P., presiding, R. 0. Crawford, plaintiff, recovered judgment against G. W. Parsons and James Grimmett, defendants, upon an account for $150 for trespass to private property, to wit, the unlawful driving the plaintiff’s mule from its range, keeping it in a pen, and compelling *591it to jump a fence and break its leg, from the effects of which it died. Account filed September 25, 1883.” *Held*error. Considering the bond in connection with the justice’s transcript, we find they correspond in every particular, except that the bond omits to state the *amount*of the judgment, which was $100. It states the amount and nature of plaintiff’s demand, that is, an account for $150, etc., and the date of the filing of said account. It states correctly the names of the parties, the date of the judgment, and' the court in which it was rendered. There is no difficulty or uncertainty in identifying the judgment described in the bond as the same set out in the justice’s transcript. It was unnecessary that the bond should state the *amount*of the judgment, when it otherwise described it with reasonable certainty. [W. & W. Con. Rep. §§ 358, 407, 408, 846, 1236; Christian v. Crawford, 60 Tex. 45.]

May 2, 1885.

Eeversed and remanded.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000921052
<NAME>                    WNC CALIFORNIA HOUSING TAX CREDITS IV, L.P.SERIES4
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US CURRENCY
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                          2,877,952
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                2,877,952
<PP&E>                                                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 11,251,250
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   0
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                      9,406,359
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   11,251,250
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  117,170
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      52,662
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  403,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (338,492)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (338,492)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (338,492)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0
        


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**MANUEL ORTIZ,**

**Petitioner :** 
**:**
**:**
**:**
**:**
**:**
**:**
**:**
**:**
**:**
**: No. 416 MAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the**  Judgment Order

**of the Superior Court at No. 1516 MDA 2014 exited**  **April 29, 2015,** affirming **the Order of the Lancaster County Court of Common**  **Pleas at No. CP-36-CR-0003548-1994 exited August 11, 2014** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 17th day of February, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal**

**is** GRANTED **on the issue of whether Petitioner’s sentence violates the prohibition**
**against mandatory life sentences for juvenile offenders announced by the Supreme**

**Court of the United States in** Miller v. Alabama **, 567 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012).**

**As a result of the recent holding by that Court that** Miller **must be applied retroactively**
**by the States,** see Montgomery v. Louisiana **, 2016 WL 280758 (U.S. Jan. 25, 2016), the**

**Superior Court’s order is** VACATED **, and the case is** REMANDED **for further**

**proceedings consistent with** Montgomery

**. To the extent necessary, leave is to be granted to amend the post-conviction** 
**petition to assert the jurisdictional provision of the Post Conviction Relief Act extending**

**to the recognition of constitutional rights by the Supreme Court of the United States**

**which it deems to be retroactive.** See **42 Pa.C.S. §9545(b)(1)(iii).**

**Mr. Justice Eakin did not participate in the consideration or decision of this**

**matter.**
Exhibit 23

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the registration  statements of
HSB  Group,  Inc.  on Form S-3 (File  No.  333-53059)  and Forms S-8 (File  Nos.
33-4397,  33-36519 and  333-29605)  of our report dated January 26, 1999, on our
audits  of  the  consolidated   financial  statements  and  financial  statement
schedules of HSB Group,  Inc. and its  subsidiaries  as of December 31, 1998 and
1997,  and for the three years in the period  ended  December  31,  1998,  which
report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

March 29, 1999
#### STATE ex rel. Vincent SIMMONS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-1174.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2011.

In re Simmons, Vincent; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Avoyelles, 12th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 37,596.

Denied. Repetitive. Cf. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4(D).

KNOLL, J., recused.
#### STATE ex rel. Nevil WATTS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-2860.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 16, 2011.

In re Watts, Nevil; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Washington, 22nd Judicial District Court Div. H, No. 93-CR1-54452; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 1458.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; *State ex rel. Glover v. State,*93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          57,083
<SECURITIES>                                     3,460
<RECEIVABLES>                                  882,069
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,121
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                77,373
<PP&E>                                          18,178
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,455
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,014,352
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           51,503
<BONDS>                                        793,520
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               70
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           190
<OTHER-SE>                                     167,694
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,014,352
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               102,350
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   23,313
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                11,756
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              37,554
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,011
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,723
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,288
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,288
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.13


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1481 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1481

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude amounts received 
as a military basic housing allowance from consideration as income for 
  purposes of the low-income housing credit and qualified residential 
                            rental projects.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 12, 2007

Mr. Moran of Kansas (for himself, Mr. Jones of North Carolina, and Mr. 
    Paul) 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 amounts received 
as a military basic housing allowance from consideration as income for 
  purposes of the low-income housing credit and qualified residential 
                            rental projects.

    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 ``Military Access to Housing Act of 
2007''.

SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS FROM INCOME FOR PURPOSES OF 
              ELIGIBILITY FOR CERTAIN HOUSING PROVISIONS.

    (a) In General.--The last sentence of 142(d)(2)(B) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to income of individuals; area median 
gross income) is amended to read as follows: ``For purposes of 
determining income under this subparagraph, subsections (g) and (h) of 
section 7872 shall not apply and any payments to a member of the Armed 
Forces under section 403 of title 37, United States Code, as a basic 
pay allowance for housing, shall be disregarded.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall take 
effect with respect to determinations made after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 11.1 - Statement of Computation of Earnings Per Share 					
	                     (In thousands except per-share data)



                                                  				Three months ended		
			                                                        	June 30		
                                                     				1997		    1996
                                                         ----      ----
                                                      				(unaudited)		

	Primary					

	Average shares outstanding			                          2,492     2,392 
						
	Net effect of dilutive stock options 					
		based on the treasury stock method 				
		using average market price		                              -   		    -
                                                       ------    ------   
						
	Total                                			               2,492     2,392 
                                                       ======  		======				

	Net income (loss)			                                $      4  $   (179)
                                                      =======			=======		
	
	Per share amount			                                 $      - 	$  (0.07)
                                                      =======   =======
						
	Note: Fully diluted earnings per share equals primary earnings per share.
EXHIBIT 99.26

                            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 Quarterly Report of MITY Enterprises, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Paul R. Killpack, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 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: October 30, 2002                  /s/ Paul R. Killpack
                                        ------------------------------------
                                        Paul R. Killpack
                                        Chief Financial Officer
#### Florence Amelia SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent-Appellee. Florence Amelia Smith, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry J. Wilson, Judge; Andrew C. Neis-ler, Jr., Attorney; Anna F. Foster, Judge, Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 00-2218, 00-2277.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 11, 2001.

Decided Jan. 17, 2001.

Florence Amelia Smith, pro se.

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In these consolidated appeals, Florence Amelia Smith appeals the district court’s orders dismissing her cases, denying her motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and ordering that any of her future district court pleadings be reviewed by the court prior to filing. We have reviewed the records in both cases and the district court’s orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Smith’s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeals as frivolous on the reasoning of the district court. *See Smith v. North Carolina,*No. CA-00-193-1-T (W.D.N.C. Aug. 29 & Sept. 13, 2000); *Smith v. Wilson,*No. CA-00-160-1-T (W.D.N.C. July 25 & Aug. 10, 2000).* We also deny Smith’s motion for appointment of counsel filed in No. 00-2277. 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.*

*

 Although the district court's August 29, 2000, order in No. 00-2218 is marked as “filed” on August 28, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on August 29, 2000. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. *See Wilson v. Murray,*806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir.1986).
#### BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Petitioner, v. Keith D. DIAMOND, individually, and Steven R. Simon, individually, Respondents.

No. 4D10-2178.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 6, 2011.

*1094Stephen T. Maher, Lee D. Mackson and Michelle L. Gerber of Shutts & Bowen LLP, Miami, for petitioner.

John P. Seiler of Seiler, Sautter, Zaden, Rimes *&*Weihe, Wilton Manors, for respondent Keith R. Diamond.

Steven R. Simon of Steven R. Simon, P.A., Miami, for respondent Steven R. Simon.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of prohibition is denied. The court has jurisdiction to consider the answers and counterclaim filed after the final judgment of foreclosure, as they relate to the motion for deficiency judgment. The answers and counterclaim also contest liability on the guarantees executed by the individual defendants. The issue of liability on the guarantees was raised in count II of the amended complaint, but those issues were not disposed of in the final judgment of foreclosure. To the extent that the answers and counterclaim are directed solely to the final judgment of foreclosure, the court lacks jurisdiction to disturb that judgment. *See Francisco v. Victoria Marine Shipping, Inc.,*486 So.2d 1886 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) (after time for rehearing ends, trial court loses jurisdiction except to *enforce*the judgment and as provided in Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)).

GROSS, C.J., WARNER and LEVINE, JJ., concur.
Second Amendment to Employment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.2 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN 
 KENNETH M. HARPER AND GREER STATE BANK 
 Second Amendment 
 WHEREAS, Greer
State Bank (“Bank”) and Kenneth M. Harper (“Executive”) established an Employment Agreement on September 8, 2004, as amended by the First Amendment dated February 22, 2007 (collectively referred to as the
“Agreement”); 
 WHEREAS, the Bank and Executive wish to amend the Agreement; and 
 WHEREAS, Section 28 of the Agreement allows for amendment of the Agreement by a writing signed by the Executive and the Bank. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Bank and the Executive mutually do covenant and agree to make the following amendments to the Agreement, each of which shall be
effective as of December 31, 2008: 
 Paragraph 6 Incentive Compensation is deleted and is hereby changed to read as follows: 

(6) Incentive Compensation. The Bank’s Board of Directors may in its sole discretion, from time to time, grant incentive compensation to
the Executive in such amount as it deems appropriate. 
 The First Paragraph of Section 23 is deleted and is hereby changed to read as follows: 

 (23) Change of Control. Subject to the provisions of Paragraph (24) below, if within two (2) years following a Change of
Control (as hereinafter defined) Executive voluntarily terminates his employment or is terminated by the Bank or its successor without cause, Bank shall fully vest Executive in the salary continuation plan described in Paragraph (22)(b) above
and Executive shall be entitled to elect to take either (a) or (b) below: 
 Paragraph 3 of the First Amendment is deleted, and the following
paragraph is hereby added to the end of Section 23 of the Agreement: 
 Restriction on Timing of Distribution. Notwithstanding
any provision of this Agreement to the contrary, if the Executive is considered a Specified Employee at termination of employment under such procedures established in accordance with Section 409A of the Code, benefit distributions that are made
upon termination of employment may not commence earlier than six (6) months after the date of such termination of employment. Therefore, in the event this paragraph under Section 23 is applicable to the Executive, who is a Specified
Employee in accordance with Section 409A of the Code at that time, any distribution which would otherwise be paid to the Executive within the first six (6) months following the termination of employment shall be accumulated and paid to the
Executive in a lump sum on the first day of the seventh month following the termination of Employment. Any subsequent distributions shall be paid in the manner specified. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Bank and the Executive have caused this
Second Amendment to the Employment Agreement to be adopted and this document executed this 30th day of December, 2008. 
  

							
	IN THE PRESENCE OF:	 		 		 	
			
	 /s/ Karen M. Corn
	 		 	 /s/ Kenneth M. Harper

		 		 	Kenneth M. Harper (Executive)
	 /s/ Tammy S. Thompson
	 		 	
		 		 	GREER STATE BANK (Bank)
	 /s/ Karen M. Corn
	 		 		 	
		 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Walter Burch

	 /s/ Tammy S. Thompson
	 		 		 	Walter Burch, Chairman of the Board