alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

K. A. HINTON, : 

 Plaintiff, : 

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 10-0311-CG-N 

BP AMERICA, INC., et al., : 

 Defendants. : 

JUDGMENT 

 It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this action be and is hereby 

DISMISSED without prejudice. 

DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of August, 2010. 

 /s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:10-cv-00311-CG-N Document 6 Filed 08/09/10 Page 1 of 1
No. 15,839.

#### The Town of North Manchester *v.*Oustal.

Municipal *Corporation.*— Validity *of Penal*Ordinance.— *Justice of the Peace.*— Appeal *to Supreme Court.*— Where a party was prosecuted before a justice of the peace for the violation of a penal ordinance of a town, the amount demanded being twenty dollars, and the only question involved being the guilt or innocence of the accused, there is no right of appeal, on the part of the town, to the Supreme Court, under section 632, R. S. 1881. The failure to convict the accused left the ordinance unaffected by the litigation, so that the validity of the ordinance upon which the prosecution was based was not in question.

From the Huntington Circuit Court.

*J. B. Kenner*and *B. F.*Clemens, for appellant.

*M. H. Kidd, N. G. Hunter*and *E. E. Eikenborg,*for appellee.

Miller, J.

— The appellee was prosecuted before a justice of the peace for the violation of a penal ordinance of the appellant.

The amount demanded in the complaint was the sum of twenty dollars.

We are met at the threshold with the question of jurisdiction.

Section 632, R. S. 1881, gives a right of appeal from all final judgments of circuit and superior courts, “ except in actions originating before a justice of the peace or mayor of a city, where the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, does not exceed fifty dollars: *Provided,*however, That this exception shall not apply to prohibit an appeal in cases originating before a justice of the peace or mayor of a city, involving the validity of an ordinance passed by an incorporated town or city.”

The fact that payment of judgments rendered in actions for the violation of penal ordinances may be enforced by imprisonment will not give a right of appeal. *Quigley*v. *City of Aurora,*50 Ind. 28.

*9Filed May 19, 1892.

Counsel for appellant strenuously insist that the validity of the ordinance, upon which the prosecution was based, was brought in question, and that, therefore, the right of appeal is not taken away by the exception contained. in the above recited section.

If this position of counsel is correct, the jurisdiction on appeal is in this court; for the only right of appeal given in actions originating before justices of the peace where the amount involved is less than fifty dollars, is in cases involving the validity of an ordinance passed by an incorporated *town;*and in such cases the appeal must be to this court. Elliott’s Appellate Procedure, sections 43, 56.

We are unable to agree with counsel in their contention, that the validity of an ordinance is involved. An examination of the record convinces us that the only question involved was the guilt or innocence of the accused of a violation of the provisions of the ordinance. The failure to convict the appellee left the ordinance unaffected by the litigation.

The appeal is therefore dismissed at appellant’s costs.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1732 

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

the basic needs allowance of members of the Armed Forces. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 22, 2023 

Mr. WOMACK (for himself, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. WENSTRUP, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. 

WITTMAN, and Mr. GAETZ) 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 gross income the basic needs allowance of members 

of the Armed Forces. 

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 ‘‘BNA Fairness Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1732 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME OF THE BASIC 

2 NEEDS ALLOWANCE OF MEMBERS OF THE 

3 ARMED FORCES. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 134(b) of the Internal 

5 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end 

6 the following new paragraph: 

7 ‘‘(7) BASIC NEEDS ALLOWANCE.—The term 

8 ‘qualified military benefit’ includes the basic needs 

9 allowance under section 402b of title 37, United 

10 States Code (as in effect at the time of the provision 

11 of such allowance).’’. 

12 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 134(b)(3) 

13 of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘as provided in sub14 paragraphs (B) and (C) and paragraphs (4) and (5)’’ and 

15 inserting ‘‘as otherwise provided in this subsection’’. 

16 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

17 this section shall apply to taxable years ending after the 

18 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
ex1010dutchdeedofpledgen







Exhibit 10.10    





 







    





 







    





 







    





 







    





 







    





 







    





 







    





 







    





 







    





 







    





 







    





 







DE BRAUW   BLACKSTONE   WESTBROEK   Address: 390 Greenwich St., 1st Floor   Place: New York, NY 10013   Country: United States of America   Fax: (646) 291-3363   Attn.: Brendan Mackay   Citibank, N.A., in its capacity   of Administrative Agent   Name: Brendan Mackay   Title: Vice President & Director   [end of document]
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1823 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.1823

                     One Hundred Eighteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
         the third day of January, two thousand and twenty-four

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 207 East Fort Dade Avenue in Brooksville, Florida, as the ``Specialist 
          Justin Dean Coleman Memorial Post Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SPECIALIST JUSTIN DEAN COLEMAN MEMORIAL POST OFFICE 
BUILDING.
    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 207 East Fort Dade Avenue in Brooksville, Florida, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Specialist Justin Dean Coleman Memorial 
Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Specialist 
Justin Dean Coleman Memorial Post Office Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Exhibit 32





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








Pursuant to Section 906 of the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted), Paul O. Koether, the Chief Executive Officer of Kent Financial Services, Inc., (the "Company"), and Bryan P. Healey, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies that:





1.
The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2011, (the "Quarterly Report"), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;





and





2.
The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








Dated:      May 23, 2011








/s/ Paul O. Koether


Paul O. Koether


Chief Executive Officer











/s/ Bryan P. Healey


Bryan P. Healey


Chief Financial Officer








---
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.2

SUBSIDIARIES OF LIFEPOINT HOSPITALS HOLDINGS, INC.:

America Group Offices, LLC
America Management Companies, LLC
AMG - Crockett, LLC
AMG - Hilcrest, LLC
AMG - Hillside, LLC
AMG - Livingston, LLC
AMG - Logan, LLC
AMG - Southern Tennessee, LLC
AMG - Trinity, LLC
Ashley Valley Medical Center, LLC
Ashley Valley Physician Practice, LLC
Athens Physician Practice, LLC
Athens Regional Medical Center, LLC
Barrow Medical Center, LLC
Bartow Healthcare Partner, Inc.
Bartow Healthcare System Ltd.
Bartow Memorial Limited Partner, LLC
Bourbon Community Hospital, LLC
Bourbon Physician Practice, LLC
Buffalo Trace Radiation Oncology Associates, LLC
Castleview Hospital, LLC
Castleview Medical, LLC
Castleview Physician Practice, LLC
Community Hospital of Andalusia, Inc.
Community Medical, LLC
Crockett Hospital, LLC
Crockett PHO, LLC
Dodge City Healthcare Group, LP  (70%)
Dodge City Healthcare Partner, Inc.
Georgetown Community Hospital, LLC
Georgetown Rehabilitation, LLC
Halstead Hospital, LLC
HCK Logan Memorial, LLC
HDP Andalusia, LLC
HDP Georgetown, LLC
Hillside Hospital, LLC
HST Physician Practice, LLC
HTI Georgetown, LLC
HTI PineLake, LLC
Integrated Physician Services, LLC
Kansas Healthcare Management Company, Inc.
Kansas Healthcare Management Services, LLC
Kentucky Hospital, LLC
Kentucky Medserv, LLC
Kentucky MSO, LLC
Kentucky Physician Services, Inc.
Lake Cumberland Regional Hospital, LLC
Lake Cumberland Regional Physician Hospital Organization, LLC
Lake Cumberland Surgery Center, LP
Lander Valley Medical Center, LLC
LHSC, LLC
LifePoint Asset Management Company, Inc.
LifePoint Corporate Services, General Partnership


<PAGE>

LifePoint CSGP, LLC
LifePoint CSLP, LLC
LifePoint Holdings 2, LLC
LifePoint Holdings 3, Inc.
LifePoint Medical Group - Hillside, Inc.
LifePoint of GAGP, LLC
LifePoint of Georgia, Limited Partnership
LifePoint of Kentucky, LLC
LifePoint of Lake Cumberland, LLC
LifePoint RC, Inc.
Livingston Regional Hospital, LLC
Logan Medical, LLC
Logan Memorial Hospital, LLC
Logan Physician Practice, LLC
Meadowview Physician Practice, LLC
Meadowview Regional Medical Center, LLC
Meadowview Rights, LLC
PineLake Physician Practice, LLC
PineLake Regional Hospital, LLC
Poitras Practice, LLC
Putnam Community Medical Center, LLC
Putnam Diagnostic Imaging Center, LLC
R. Kendall Brown Practice, LLC
Riverton Memorial Hospital, LLC
Riverton Physician Practices, LLC
Riverview Medical Center, LLC
Select Healthcare, LLC
Siletchnik Practice, LLC
Smith County Memorial Hospital, LLC
Somerset Surgery Partner, LLC
Southern Tennessee EMS, LLC
Southern Tennessee Medical Center, LLC
Southern Tennessee PHO, LLC
Springhill Medical Center, LLC
Springhill MOB, LLC
Springhill Physician Practice, LLC
THM Physician Practice, LLC
Ville Platte Medical Center, LLC
Western Plains Regional Hospital, LLC
Woodford Hospital, LLC
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Opinion filed August 20 , 2020

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 20

- 00545

- CV

IN RE CHRISTOPHER DUPUY , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 333rd District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2019

- 89958



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

On August 4, 2020 , relator Christopher Dupuy filed a petition for writ of

m andamus in this c ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator ask s this c ourt to compel the Honorable Daryl Moore, presiding judge of the 333rd District Court of Harris County, to: (1) vacate his February 24, 2020 order denying relator’s motion for default judgment and his June 20, 2020 order denying relator’s motion to compel responses to discovery requests, and (2) to grant these motions.2

We d ismiss relator’s petition without prejudice to refiling because relator’s petition and appendix do not show that relator has complied with the requirements
of Rule 52.7 and Rule 52.3(k) and (j) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justices Spain, Hassan, and Poissant.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                       5
<LEGEND>

</LEGEND>
<CIK>                           0001089814
<NAME>                          Electrical Generation Technology Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                    1
<CURRENCY>                      US Dollars

<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                 1
<CASH>                          0
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                0
<PP&E>                          0
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           160,197
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        12,090
<OTHER-SE>                      172,287
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    0
<SALES>                         8,372
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                8,372
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   292,172
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              3,597
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (287,397)
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (287,397)
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (287,397)
<EPS-BASIC>                     (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   0



</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.77

                           Doral Mortgage Corporation


                                  July 22, 1998


Mr. Edison Velez
650 Munoz Rivera Avenue
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00918

         Re:      Employment Agreement dated as of December 31, 1996
                  between Doral Mortgage Corporation and Edison Velez
                  (the "Employment Agreement")

Dear Mr. Velez:

         This letter agreement serves to amend the terms of the above-referenced
Employment Agreement as follows:

         (1) Section 3(b)(i) of the Employment Agreement is amended to read in
its entirety as follows:

                  "(b)(i) During the term of this Agreement, you shall also be
                  entitled to receive an annual incentive bonus equal to the
                  lesser of (x) $300,000 and (y) 3% of the net income of DMC
                  over and above $300,000 derived from its Mortgage Banking
                  Activities (as hereinafter defined)

         (2) Except as expressly provided herein, the terms of the Employment
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

         Please evidence your agreement and acceptance of the foregoing
amendment by signing this letter in the space indicated below.

                               Very truly yours,

                               /s/ Salomon Levis

                               Salomon Levis
                               Chairman of the Board


AGREED AND ACCEPTED, as the date
first above set forth:



/s/ Edison Velez
---------------------------------
Edison Velez
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ANTHONY O’NEAL CROOMES, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0509-CG-N

)

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

)

)

)

Defendant. )

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the order entered on this date, it is hereby ORDERED, 

ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the action filed by Anthony O’Neal Croomes is

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 

DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of May, 2015.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00509-CG-N Document 16 Filed 05/05/15 Page 1 of 1
#### Mary C. Paul, et al., *v.*Hugh W. Paul.

Mental Capacity of Defendant — Service of Process.

Where a defendant before a suit was brought against him had been found to be of unsound mind and sent to the lunatic asylum and there' is no evidence that he was served with process or that a committee or guardian was appointed, it was error to render judgment against him.

APPEAL FROM WOODFORD COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

December 1, 1876.

Opinion by

Judge Elliott :

From the pleadings and proof in this cause it appears that at the bringing of this suit and at this time Thomas W. Paul, one of the appellants, was and is a lunatic, and that before this suit was brought he had been found to be of unsound mind and sent to the lunatic asylum at Lexington, Ky., where he has been confined ever since, and there is no evidence in this record either that he has been served with process or that a committee or guardian was appointed in the court below to defend for him, and consequently it was error to render judgment against him.

Sec. 60, Civil Code, declares that no judgment can be rendered against a person of unsound mind till after defense either by committee or guardian ad litem, appointed by the court, and that the appointment of his guardian to defend shall not be made till after the service of the summons in the action as required by the code. For this error alone the judgment is *reversed,*and cause remanded with *811instructions to bring Thomas W. Paul before the court, and for further proceedings consistent herewith.

*Porter & Wallace, for appellants.*

*Marshall & McLeod, for appellee.*
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 23.2a

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
National Bancshares Corporation of Texas:


We consent to incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-94213
on Form S-8 of National Bancshares Corporation of Texas of our report dated
March 16, 2001 relating to the consolidated balance sheet of National Bancshares
Corporation of Texas and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2000 and 1999, and the
related consolidated statements of income, changes in stockholders' equity and
cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2000,
which report appears in the December 31, 2000 annual report on Form 10-K of
National Bancshares Corporation of Texas.

                                  /s/ KPMG LLP

San Antonio, Texas
March 30, 2001
#### John SMART; Sota Foods, Inc., d/b/a King of Potatoes; John Smart & Associates, Inc., Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. SUNSHINE POTATO FLAKES, L.L.C., Defendant—Appellee.

No. 00-2656.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted May 16, 2001.

Decided May 22, 2001.

Before LOKEN, JOHN R. GIBSON, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

In August 1997, John Smart, John Smart & Associates, Inc., and Sunshine Potato Flakes, L.L.C., entered into an Exclusive Distributor Agreement containing a broad arbitration clause. The contractual relationship ended in January 2000, and arbitration proceedings commenced in which breach-of-contract claims and counterclaims have been asserted. John Smart and two of his companies filed this diversi*386ty action against Sunshine, alleging that a post-termination letter from Sunshine’s plant manager to customers was defamatory. Responding to a motion by Sunshine, the district court1 entered an order staying the lawsuit and directing the parties to arbitrate this dispute. The Smart plaintiffs appeal, arguing their defamation claims are not arbitrable.

Absent a district court certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)—and there was no such certification in this case—an interlocutory order staying an action and directing arbitration is not appealable. *See*9 U.S.C. § 16(b); *Lebanon Chem. Corp. v. United Farmers Plant Food, Inc.,*179 F.3d 1095, 1102 (8th Cir.1999). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Appellee’s motion for an award of costs and attorneys’ fees is denied.

1

. The Honorable Rodney S. Webb, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota.
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350, **

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

**OF      THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (a) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (b) | Information                contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,                the                financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:                May 19, 2006 | /s/                Shannon T. Squyres  |
|------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                               | By:                Shannon T. Squyres  |
|                               | Chief                Executive Officer |

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                        
<ARTICLE> 5
                          
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1995



<CASH>                                        693,196
<SECURITIES>                                    8,775
<RECEIVABLES>                                 526,049
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            1,228,020
<PP&E>                                     12,281,459
<DEPRECIATION>                             10,347,963
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              4,008,748
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         508,558
<BONDS>                                             0
<COMMON>                                       25,039
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                  2,545,420
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                4,008,748
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            7,310,699
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            7,601,315
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (290,616)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   18,163
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 0
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (308,779)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0
                                    
                                

</TABLE>