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

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4795 

To amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to exclude 

cooperative employing units from multiple employer welfare arrangements. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 9, 2004 

Mr. ANDREWS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 

of 1974 to exclude cooperative employing units from 

multiple employer welfare arrangements. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXCLUSION OF COOPERATIVE EMPLOYING 

4 UNITS FROM MULTIPLE EMPLOYER WELFARE 

5 ARRANGEMENTS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (A) of section 

7 3(40) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act 

8 of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 1002(40)) is amended— 

9 (1) by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end of clause (ii); 
2 

•HR 4795 IH 

1 (2) by striking the period at the end of clause 

2 (iii) and inserting ‘‘, or’’; and 

3 (3) by inserting after clause (iii) the following 

4 new clause: 

5 ‘‘(iv) by a cooperative employing unit.’’. 

6 (b) COOPERATIVE EMPLOYING UNIT DEFINED.— 

7 Subparagraph (B) of section 3(40) of such Act is amend8 ed— 

9 (1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of clause (iv); 

10 (2) by striking the period at the end of clause 

11 (v) and inserting ‘‘, and’’; and 

12 (3) by inserting after clause (v) the following 

13 new clause: 

14 ‘‘(vi) the term ‘cooperative employing unit’ 

15 means— 

16 ‘‘(I) a corporation with at least 21 share17 holders operating on a cooperative basis subject 

18 to the provisions of Subchapter T of chapter 1 

19 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, all the 

20 shareholders of which engage in business oper21 ations using the same four digit North Amer22 ican Industry Classification System (NAICS) 

23 code root, and 

24 ‘‘(II) where the corporation assumes re25 sponsibility pursuant to a written agreement 
3 

•HR 4795 IH 

1 with each shareholder, with respect to all work2 site employees providing services to such share3 holder, for the payment of wages and the with4 holding, payment and reporting of taxes related 

5 thereto, for the provision of employee benefits, 

6 and for the hiring and termination of workers, 

7 without regard to the receipt or adequacy of 

8 payment from the shareholder for services.’’. 

Æ
NOTE: abo ve is similar to Tran With Wait. Difference is second expression flips front polarization to DOWN state 

### Trajectory Comments

Single quotes are text input

Produces filename: polarizationUP0 polarization DO WN 2

Spaces will produce underscores ‘_’

This steps by 1 from 1 to 10

. This sets waitPoint to 0 goes to subloop.

E xpression flips front pol

. to UP

state. C ounts 120s with no time delay as waitPoint is 0. After count, goes to next expression in subloop.

This expression flips front polarization to DOWN state, waits 2s and then counts 120s. Then, it goes back to main loop.
1

Because this stipulation of dismissal is not signed by all parties who have appeared in this

action, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(ii), it must be treated as a motion to dismiss. See Fed.

R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2) (dismissal by court order necessary if requirements of voluntary dismissal are

not met). 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

LINDA PEACOCK, )

Plaintiff, )

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-0377-KD-C

BURNEY H. MERRILL, et al. )

Defendants. )

ORDER

On March 1, 2010, Plaintiff Linda Peacock and Defendants Floragon Forest Products

Molalla, Inc., FFP, Inc., FFPM, Inc., Floragon Forest Products, Inc., Floragon Holding

Company, Inc., Floragon Manufacturing Company, Inc., and Floragon Timber, LLC

(collectively, “the Floragon Defendants”) filed a joint stipulation of dismissal (doc. 688)

agreeing “to the dismissal of all remaining claims against the Floragon Defendants prejudice,

costs taxed as paid.” Pursuant to that stipulation,1 it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and

DECREED that Plaintiff’s claims against the Floragon Defendants be and hereby are

DISMISSED with prejudice.

DONE this 10th day of March, 2010.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00377-KD-C Document 700 Filed 03/10/10 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:05-cv-00377-KD-C Document 700 Filed 03/10/10 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit99(b)**

 

 

 

**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 accompanying Annual Report of ALLTEL Corporation(the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,Jeffery R. Gardner Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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 result of operations of the  Company. |

 
| /s/ Jeffery R. Gardner                            |   |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                              |
| Jeffery R. Gardner                                |
| Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
| March 19, 2003                                    |

 

----
#### Robert M. Bailey v. Adelaide A. Bailey et al. by their guardian and next friend.

Error to Lenawee.

Submitted Oct. 21.

Decided Oct. 27.

Ejectment. Defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

*Staoy & Underwood*for plaintiff in error.

*Wemer c& Werner*for defendants in error.

Per Curiam.

This case was before the court several terms since and we affirmed a judgment in favor of defendants in error. 36 Mich. 181.

They have again recovered on a new trial taken by the plaintiff in error under the statute, and another review in this court is claimed.

*649Tbe defendant Emily J. S. Bailey has deceased since the former hearing. We have examined the record with the assistance of the learned counsel, with attention; and we are not able to discover anything worthy of comment to cause any distinction between the case as it now appears and as it appeared on the previous hearing.

Every material point now urged was we think considered and decided at that time and a rediscussion would not be profitable.

The judgment is affirmed with costs.
# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted March 31, 2010

Decided April 30, 2010

Before

MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge

ILANA DIAMOND ROVNER, Circuit Judge

DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge

No. 09

‐ 3325

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

‐ Appellee

,

v.

FRANCISCO PEREZ

‐ SOLIS,

Defendant

‐ Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of Indiana,

South Bend Division.

No. 3:09

‐ CR

‐ 00077

‐ RLM

‐ 1

Robert L. Miller, Jr.,

Judge

.

O R D E R

Francisco Perez

‐ Solis pleaded guilty to using a telephone to facilitate a drug offense,

21 U.S.C. § 843(b), after he served as a Spanish

‐ English translator during two calls between

his roommate and a prospective buyer in which they arranged for the sale of eight

kilograms of cocaine. The district court sentenced him to the statutory maximum of 48

months’ imprisonment. Id. § 843(d)(1). He appeals, but counsel moves to withdraw because

he cannot identify any nonfrivolous arguments to pursue. See Anders v. California

, 386 U.S.

738 (1967). Perez

‐ Solis did not respond to counsel’s submission. See C IR

. R. 51(b).

Considering only the issue presented in counsel’s facially adequate brief, see United States v.

Schuh

, 289 F.3d 968, 973

‐ 74 (7th Cir. 2002), we grant the motion to withdraw and dismiss the

appeal. NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1No. 09

‐ 3325 Page 2

The sole issue identified by counsel is whether Perez

‐ Solis could challenge the

reasonableness of his prison sentence, and we agree that any such challenge would be

frivolous. The district court properly determined that Perez

‐ Solis’s guidelines range of 97 to

121 months’ imprisonment exceeded the 48

‐ month statutory maximum, and therefore that

maximum became the guidelines sentence, see 5 U.S.S.G. § 5G1.1(a). Because Perez

‐ Solis’s

sentence was within the properly calculated guidelines range, we would presume it to be

reasonable. See Rita v. United States

, 551 U.S. 338, 347 (2007); United States v. Sawyer

, 558 F.3d

705, 714

‐ 15 (7th Cir. 2009). Furthermore, the district court properly applied the factors

enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). The court acknowledged Perez

‐ Solis’s role as a

translator, but highlighted the circumstances of the offense, which included a substantial

quantity of drugs and Perez

‐ Solis’s instrumental participation in the sales. The court also

considered Perez

‐ Solis’s personal characteristics, noting his prior marijuana use and

substantial alcohol consumption while on supervised release, as well as his unlawful

presence in the United States.

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the appeal is DISMISSED.
M CORP

                               EXHIBIT #22

                              SUBSIDIARIES


                                                                   Percentage
                                                                     Voting
                                                                   Securities
                                       State of                     Owned By
Name Of Company                      Organization                  Registrant

First Montana Development Company
  (Inactive)                           Montana                         100.0

Century Title Company (Inactive)       Montana                         100.0

Century Title Insurance Company
  (Inactive)                           Montana                         100.0

Diversified Realty, Inc.               Montana                          83.9

TSI, Inc.                              Montana                          90.9

UAC, Inc.                              Delaware                          (1)

TSI Business Systems, Inc.             Montana                           (2)

TSI Leasing, Inc.                      Montana                           (2)

First Mortgage Investors, Inc.
  (Inactive)                           North Dakota                      (3)

First Montana Title Company of
  Great Falls                          Montana                           (4)

First Montana Title Insurance
  Company                              Montana                           (2)

First Montana Title Company of
  Billings                             Montana                           (5)

First Montana Title Company of
  Forsyth                              Montana                           (5)

Consulting Associates, Inc.            Montana                           (4)


     (1) Owned  86.9% by TSI, Inc.
     (2) Owned   100% by TSI, Inc.
     (3) Owned    70% by UAC, Inc.
     (4) Owned   100% by UAC, Inc.
     (5) Owned   100% by First Montana Title Insurance Company



TSI, Inc. and Diversified Realty, Inc., are each registered under the
Exchange Act and each files its own Form 10-KSB pursuant to that act.


<PAGE>
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Ronald Mustari, President and Chief Executive Officer (principal executive officer) of Whitehall
Limited, Inc. certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Whitehall Limited, Inc.;

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

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

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

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

b) evaluated the effectiveness of
the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this quarterly report based on
such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants control over financial reporting; and

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

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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial
reporting.

Date: September 11, 2006



/s/ Ronald MustariRonald Mustari, President and Chief Executive Officer
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 22, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00380

- CV

Leola STUART,

Appellant

v.

Estelita JUDSON,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 2, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 391869

Honorable Tina Torres, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant ’s brief was due August 11, 2014. Neither the brief nor a motion for extension

of time was filed.

We therefore order appellant to file in this court on or before Sept ember 2, 2014

, her

appellant’s brief and a written response reasonably explaining her failure to timely file the brief.

If appellant fails to file a brief and the written response by the date ordered, we will dismiss the

appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a).

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 22nd day of August, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
These schedules contain summary financial information extracted from Motor Club
of America's Consolidated Balance Sheets for the period ending December 31, 1997
and the Consolidated Statements of Operations for the twelve months then ended
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                        56,831,444
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                     522,555
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                              64,503,999
<CASH>                                         222,761
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                       5,858,650
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             101,346,691
<POLICY-LOSSES>                             50,246,778
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                         19,285,757
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,047,215
<OTHER-SE>                                  21,953,818
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               101,346,691
<PREMIUMS>                                  50,877,890
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                          3,594,509
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                   0
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 224,271
<BENEFITS>                                  33,141,691
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                 15,162,320
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                         1,762,192
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              4,630,467
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,147,765
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,482,702
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,482,702
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.68
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.66
<RESERVE-OPEN>                              47,666,856
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                         34,322,429
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                            2,469,736
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                          12,753,265
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                            21,458,978
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                             50,246,778
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                      2,469,736


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 21





SUBSIDAIRIES OF THE INTERGROUP CORPORATION





(1)  Intergroup Summit Hills, Inc. (incorporated on August 12, 1993 in TX)


(2)  Intergroup Mariposa, Inc. (incorporated on June 23, 1994 in TX)


(3)  Intergroup Arlington Arms, Inc. (incorporated on August 5, 1993 in TX)


(4)  Intergroup Woodland Village, Inc. (incorporated on August 5, 1993 in OH)*


(5)  Intergroup Cross Keys, Inc. (incorporated on April 1, 1994 in MO)


(6)  Intergroup Bridgeton, Inc. (incorporated on May 12, 1994 in MO)


(7) Intergroup Whisperwood, Inc. (incorporated on June 20, 1994 in PA)


(8) Intergroup Entertainment Corp. (incorporated on December 23, 1993 in DE)


(9) Mutual Real Estate Corp. (incorporated on March 10, 1994 in TX)


(10) Broadview Enterprises, Inc. (incorporated April 14, 1995 in MO)


(11) Wayward, Inc. (incorporated April 18, 1995 in MO)


(12) Golden West Entertainment, Inc. (incorporated February 15, 1990 in CA)


(13) Golden West Television Productions, Inc. (incorporated September 17,1991 in CA)


(14) Golden West Television Productions, Inc. (incorporated March 17, 1986 inNY)


(15) Intergroup Meadowbrook Gardens, Inc. (incorporated on June 23, 1994 inNJ)


(16) Intergroup Pine Lake, Inc. (incorporated on February 9, 1996 in KY)


(17) Bellagio Capital Fund, LLC (established on June 18, 1997 in NV)


(18) Healthy Planet Communications, Inc. (incorporated July 3, 1997 in CA)


(19) Santa Fe Financial Corporation (incorporated July 25, 1967 in NV)**


(20) Portsmouth Square, Inc. (incorporated July 6, 1967 in CA)***


(21) 2301 Bel-Air Equity, Inc. (incorporated May 25, 2000 in CA)


(22) 11371 Ovada Properties, Inc. (incorporated May 25, 2000 in CA)


(23) 11361 Ovada Properties, Inc. (incorporated June 1, 2000 in CA)


(24) 11680 Bellagio Properties, Inc. (incorporated May 25, 2000 in CA)


(25) North Sepulveda Properties, Inc. (incorporated June 21, 2000 in CA)


(26) 11650 Bellagio Properties, Inc. (incorporated August 17, 2000 in CA)


(27) 11720 Bellagio Properties, Inc. (incorporated January 17, 2001 in CA)


(28) 636 Acanto Properties, Inc. (incorporated February 15, 2001 in CA)


(29) 614 Acanto Properties, Inc. (incorporated November 7, 2001 in CA)


(30) Intergroup Uluniu, Inc. (incorporated August 12, 2004 in HI)****


(31) 850 Moraga Properties LLC (formed on October 19, 2010 in CA)


(32) 855 Moraga Properties LLC (formed on October 19, 2010 in CA)





Unless otherwise indicated, all subsidiaries are 100%-owned.





*    The InterGroup Corporation owns 44.6% of Intergroup Woodland Village, Inc.and 55.4% is owned by Santa Fe Financial Corporation.





**Santa Fe Financial Corporation is an approximately 77%-owned subsidiary ofThe InterGroupCorporation.





***  Santa Fe owns approximately 68.8% of Portsmouth Square, Inc. and TheInterGroup Corporation owns approximately 11.7% of Portsmouth Square.





**** The InterGroup Corporation owns 50% of Intergroup Uluniu, Inc. and Portsmouth Square, Inc. owns 50%.
11122.

#### FICKLEN *et al. v.*ELBERTON & EASTERN RAILROAD CO.

Decided March 2, 1920.

Where in an action for damages on account of the closing of ways of entrance to certain lands by the construction of a railroad it appeared, from evidence of the plaintiffs, that the passageway closed was not a private way or public road as defined by law, and that there was still a way to cross the railroad and reach the lands of the plaintiffs, though not as convenient as the one closed, and that in condemnation proceedings before the railroad was built, damages as to the same lands were assessed in favor of the plaintiffs against the railroad company, the court did not err in granting a nonsuit.

Action for damages; from Wilkes superior court — Judge Walker. November 3,1919.

*Carroll D. Colley, Clement E. Button,*for plaintiffs.

*W. A. Slaton,*for defendant.

Luke, J.

The plaintiffs sued the railroad company for damages, alleging that they had been damaged by reason of the construction of a railroad across their land and the enclosing of certain claimed ways of entrance thereto, etc. At the conclusion of the plaintiffs’ evidence the court granted a nonsuit, and upon this judgment error is assigned. An examination of the evidence shows that the plaintiffs were inconvenienced by reason of the railroad embankment and the closing of a certain passageway, which, however, was not a private way or a public road as defined by law, and that there is a way to get across the railroad and reach the lands of the plaintiffs, though not as convenient as one would wish. But before the railroad was built, condemnation proceedings were had, and the plaintiffs’ damages were, by a verdict of a jury in the superior court upon an appeal from the return of the assessors in the condemnation proceeding, assessed as to the very lands now giving rise to the claim for damages. We see no error in the nonsuit. See *Cox*v. *E. T. &c Railroad,*68 *Ga.*446; Civil Code (1910), § 807.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*