alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-17-00066-CR

Roger Alexander Conant, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 3 OF TRAVIS COUNTY 

NO. C-1-CR-14-213580, THE HONORABLE JOHN LIPSCOMBE, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant’s brief on appeal was originally due July 24, 2017. On counsel’s 

motions, the time for filing was extended to December 20, 2017. Appellant’s counsel has now 

filed a fourth motion, requesting that the Court extend the time for filing appellant’s brief. We 

grant the motion for extension of time and order appellant to file a brief no later than February 

20, 2018. No further extension of time will be granted and failure to comply with this order will 

result in the referral of this case to the trial court for a hearing under Rule 38.8(b) of the Texas 

Rules of Appellate Procedure.

It is ordered on February 6, 2018.

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton, and Bourland

Do Not Publish
Exhibit 10.17 Description of Arrangement for Director Fees






EXHIBIT 10.17


Description of Arrangement for Directors Fees


The table below sets forth the amount of fees payable to outside directors of Webster Financial Corporation for their services as Directors for the period April 2012 to April 2013. The Compensation Committee will conduct the annual compensation review in February 2013.  The Committee may decide to revise the Schedule shown below at the meeting or at another meeting.


Event                                Amount    


		
	Annual Retainer
	 $32,000 




Board Meeting Attended                        $  1,200


Committee Meeting Attended                    $  1,200


Telephonic Board Meeting                        $     600


Telephonic Committee Meeting                    $     600


Separate Webster Financial Corporation and Webster            $  2,000
Bank Board Meetings (Held on the Same Day)


		
	Annual Retainer for Lead Director
	$22,500




Annual Retainer for the Chair of the Audit Committee        $15,000


Annual Retainer for the Chair of the Compensation Committee    $10,000




Annual Retainer for the Chair of the Risk Committee            $10,000


Annual Retainer for the Chair of the Nominating & Corporate        $  7,500
Governance Committee
Case 2:11-cv-01150-SDW-LDW   Document 30   Filed 02/09/12   Page 1 of 22 PageID: 261

Case 2:11-cv-01150-SDW-LDW   Document 30   Filed 02/09/12   Page 2 of 22 PageID: 262

Case 2:11-cv-01150-SDW-LDW   Document 30   Filed 02/09/12   Page 3 of 22 PageID: 263

Case 2:11-cv-01150-SDW-LDW   Document 30   Filed 02/09/12   Page 4 of 22 PageID: 264

Case 2:11-cv-01150-SDW-LDW   Document 30   Filed 02/09/12   Page 5 of 22 PageID: 265

Case 2:11-cv-01150-SDW-LDW   Document 30   Filed 02/09/12   Page 6 of 22 PageID: 266

Case 2:11-cv-01150-SDW-LDW   Document 30   Filed 02/09/12   Page 7 of 22 PageID: 267

Case 2:11-cv-01150-SDW-LDW   Document 30   Filed 02/09/12   Page 8 of 22 PageID: 268

Case 2:11-cv-01150-SDW-LDW   Document 30   Filed 02/09/12   Page 9 of 22 PageID: 269

Case 2:11-cv-01150-SDW-LDW   Document 30   Filed 02/09/12   Page 10 of 22 PageID: 270

Case 2:11-cv-01150-SDW-LDW   Document 30   Filed 02/09/12   Page 11 of 22 PageID: 271

Case 2:11-cv-01150-SDW-LDW   Document 30   Filed 02/09/12   Page 12 of 22 PageID: 272

Case 2:11-cv-01150-SDW-LDW   Document 30   Filed 02/09/12   Page 13 of 22 PageID: 273

Case 2:11-cv-01150-SDW-LDW   Document 30   Filed 02/09/12   Page 14 of 22 PageID: 274

Case 2:11-cv-01150-SDW-LDW   Document 30   Filed 02/09/12   Page 15 of 22 PageID: 275

Case 2:11-cv-01150-SDW-LDW   Document 30   Filed 02/09/12   Page 16 of 22 PageID: 276

Case 2:11-cv-01150-SDW-LDW   Document 30   Filed 02/09/12   Page 17 of 22 PageID: 277

Case 2:11-cv-01150-SDW-LDW   Document 30   Filed 02/09/12   Page 18 of 22 PageID: 278

Case 2:11-cv-01150-SDW-LDW   Document 30   Filed 02/09/12   Page 19 of 22 PageID: 279

Case 2:11-cv-01150-SDW-LDW   Document 30   Filed 02/09/12   Page 20 of 22 PageID: 280

Case 2:11-cv-01150-SDW-LDW   Document 30   Filed 02/09/12   Page 21 of 22 PageID: 281

Case 2:11-cv-01150-SDW-LDW   Document 30   Filed 02/09/12   Page 22 of 22 PageID: 282
Case 3:11-cv-01160-AET -DEA Document 5 Filed 04/25/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID: 54
Case 3:11-cv-01160-AET -DEA Document 5 Filed 04/25/11 Page 2 of 4 PageID: 55
Case 3:11-cv-01160-AET -DEA Document 5 Filed 04/25/11 Page 3 of 4 PageID: 56
Case 3:11-cv-01160-AET -DEA Document 5 Filed 04/25/11 Page 4 of 4 PageID: 57
#### UNIFLOW MFG. CO. v. SUPERFLOW MFG. CORP. et al.

Civ. A. No. 26937.

United States District Court N. D. Ohio, E. D.

Sept. 18, 1950.

John F. Oberlin, Cleveland, Ohio, Harvey L. Lechner, Alfred C. Aurich, of Philadelphia, Pa., Florian G. Miller, Erie, Pa., for plaintiff.

Wm. C. McCoy, Frederic M. Bosworth, Stanley M. Clark, Paul Clarke, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant.

JONES, Chief Judge.

This is a patent and copyright infringement action.

 Plaintiff has dismissed the copyright infringement action. Section 116, 17 U.S.C.A. provides that in such actions the prevailing party shall be awarded its full costs and the court may award reasonable attorneys’ fees as part of such costs. A voluntary dismissal by plaintiff after the defendant has taken depositions and filed a motion for more definite statement makes the defendant the prevailing party. Corcoran v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 9 Cir., 121 F.2d 575. However, from the exhibits on file in this action it appears that defendant has appropriated plaintiff’s copyrighted material. Even though plaintiff cannot enforce its copyright, such conduct on the part of the defendant calls for a denial of its application for attorney fees. Advertisers Exchange v. Anderson, 8 Cir., 144 F.2d 907; Kraft v. Cohen, D.C., 38 F.Supp. 1022; Aldrich v. Remington Rand, D.C., 52 F.Supp. 732. Attorneys’ fees will be denied, but if plaintiff at a later date reinstitutes the copyright action it will be required to pay the attorneys’ fees as a condition therefor.

Actual costs must be awarded to the defendant. However, some of the items in the cost bill must be allocated between the copyright and patent action. At this time *590the court does not have the necessary information to make such allocation and the award must await further hearing at trial.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 28, 2017

No. 04-17-00599-CR

Juan G. RODRIGUEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CR4740

Honorable Laura Parker, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s second motion for extension of time to file the appellant’s brief is granted. 

We order appellant to file the appellant’s brief by January 29, 2018. Counsel is advised that no 

further extensions of time will be granted absent a timely motion that (1) demonstrates 

extraordinary circumstances justifying further delay, (2) advises the court of the efforts counsel 

has expended in preparing the brief, and (3) provides the court reasonable assurance that the brief 

will be completed and filed by the requested extended deadline. The court does not generally 

consider a heavy work schedule to be an extraordinary circumstance.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 28th day of December, 2017.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 130 (Thursday, July 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32910-32911]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16166]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EF09-5101-000]


Western Area Power Administration; Notice of Filing

June 30, 2009.
    Take notice that on June 17, 2009, the Deputy Secretary, U.S. 
Department of Energy, under the authority of the Department of Energy 
Organization Act (42 U.S.C. et seq.), confirm and approve on an interim 
basis, effective June 8, 2009, a power rate formula for the Amistad and 
Falcon Projects, and pursuant to the authority vested by Delegation 
Order No. 00-037.00, submitted a certification of the power rate 
formula and the power rate formula for confirmation and final approval 
effective June 8, 2009 and ending June 7, 2014, under Rate Order No. 
WAPA-143.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the

[[Page 32911]]

Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person 
wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion 
to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must 
be filed on or before the comment date. On or before the comment date, 
it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on 
persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a6e0e3f4e5e9c8cacfc8c3f5d3d6d6c9d4d2e6c0c3d4c588c1c9d0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="98deddcadbd7f6f4f1f6fdcbede8e8f7eaecd8fefdeafbb6fff7ee">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on July 17, 2009.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-16166 Filed 7-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>

Exhibit 23        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

The Board of Directors
Medialink Worldwide Incorporated:

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No.
333-27207) on Form S-8 of Medialink Worldwide Incorporated of our report dated
February 15, 1999, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Medialink
Worldwide Incorporated and Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and
the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
1998, which report appears in the December 31, 1998 annual report on Form 10-K
of Medialink Worldwide Incorporated.

                                                                   KPMG LLP

New York, New York
March 29, 1999
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent 

 v. 

BRAHEEM KAMEIL BIVENS, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 106 MM 2014 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 8th day of September, 2014, the Petition for Leave to File Petition 

for Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is GRANTED. Although counsel was negligent, 

Petitioner is entitled to a counsel-filed Petition for Allowance of Appeal. See 

Pa.R.Crim.P. 904. Counsel is directed to file a Petition for Allowance of Appeal within 

15 days of this order. 

Mr. Justice Stevens notes his dissent and would direct negligent counsel to file a 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal within 48 hours of this order.
Case 1:11-cv-01219-JBS-KMW   Document 21-2   Filed 05/23/11   Page 1 of 25 PageID: 367

Case 1:11-cv-01219-JBS-KMW   Document 21-2   Filed 05/23/11   Page 2 of 25 PageID: 368

Case 1:11-cv-01219-JBS-KMW   Document 21-2   Filed 05/23/11   Page 3 of 25 PageID: 369

Case 1:11-cv-01219-JBS-KMW   Document 21-2   Filed 05/23/11   Page 4 of 25 PageID: 370

Case 1:11-cv-01219-JBS-KMW   Document 21-2   Filed 05/23/11   Page 5 of 25 PageID: 371

Case 1:11-cv-01219-JBS-KMW   Document 21-2   Filed 05/23/11   Page 6 of 25 PageID: 372

Case 1:11-cv-01219-JBS-KMW   Document 21-2   Filed 05/23/11   Page 7 of 25 PageID: 373

Case 1:11-cv-01219-JBS-KMW   Document 21-2   Filed 05/23/11   Page 8 of 25 PageID: 374

Case 1:11-cv-01219-JBS-KMW   Document 21-2   Filed 05/23/11   Page 9 of 25 PageID: 375

Case 1:11-cv-01219-JBS-KMW   Document 21-2   Filed 05/23/11   Page 10 of 25 PageID: 376

Case 1:11-cv-01219-JBS-KMW   Document 21-2   Filed 05/23/11   Page 11 of 25 PageID: 377

Case 1:11-cv-01219-JBS-KMW   Document 21-2   Filed 05/23/11   Page 12 of 25 PageID: 378

Case 1:11-cv-01219-JBS-KMW   Document 21-2   Filed 05/23/11   Page 13 of 25 PageID: 379

Case 1:11-cv-01219-JBS-KMW   Document 21-2   Filed 05/23/11   Page 14 of 25 PageID: 380

Case 1:11-cv-01219-JBS-KMW   Document 21-2   Filed 05/23/11   Page 15 of 25 PageID: 381

Case 1:11-cv-01219-JBS-KMW   Document 21-2   Filed 05/23/11   Page 16 of 25 PageID: 382

Case 1:11-cv-01219-JBS-KMW   Document 21-2   Filed 05/23/11   Page 17 of 25 PageID: 383

Case 1:11-cv-01219-JBS-KMW   Document 21-2   Filed 05/23/11   Page 18 of 25 PageID: 384

Case 1:11-cv-01219-JBS-KMW   Document 21-2   Filed 05/23/11   Page 19 of 25 PageID: 385

Case 1:11-cv-01219-JBS-KMW   Document 21-2   Filed 05/23/11   Page 20 of 25 PageID: 386

Case 1:11-cv-01219-JBS-KMW   Document 21-2   Filed 05/23/11   Page 21 of 25 PageID: 387

Case 1:11-cv-01219-JBS-KMW   Document 21-2   Filed 05/23/11   Page 22 of 25 PageID: 388

Case 1:11-cv-01219-JBS-KMW   Document 21-2   Filed 05/23/11   Page 23 of 25 PageID: 389

Case 1:11-cv-01219-JBS-KMW   Document 21-2   Filed 05/23/11   Page 24 of 25 PageID: 390

Case 1:11-cv-01219-JBS-KMW   Document 21-2   Filed 05/23/11   Page 25 of 25 PageID: 391
EX-10.14



 Exhibit 10.14 
 Exhibit 10.14 
 The following current executive officers have entered into
Executive Severance Agreements with the Company in the form filed herewith. The information listed below is inserted into the blanks for the respective executive officer’s Executive Severance Agreement. 

 

																
	 	  	 Salary
Multiplier

Rate
  
	  	 	  	 Change of Control

 

	 	  	  	Termination
Period	  	Continuation
Period
	 	  	(Section 4(a)(4))	  	(Section 1(n))	  	(Section 2)
	 R. Paul Guerre
	  	 	 	2	 	  	 	 	2 years	 	  	 	 	24 months	 
	 Michael Jeppesen
	  	 	 	2	 	  	 	 	2 years	 	  	 	 	24 months
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 133 (Tuesday, July 14, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 34040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16607]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-64,806]


Garvin Industries, a Division of Guarantee Specialties, Inc. 
Including On-Site Leased Workers From Meadville Staffing/Career 
Concepts, Adamsville, PA; Amended Certification Regarding Eligibility 
To Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade 
Adjustment Assistance

    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 
2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as 
amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification of Eligibility 
to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade 
Adjustment Assistance on April 13, 2009, applicable to workers of 
Garvin Industries, a division of Guarantee Specialties, Inc., 
Adamsville, Pennsylvania. The notice was published in the Federal 
Register on April 30, 2009 (74 FR 19996).
    At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the 
certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged 
in the production of gaskets and seals for the automotive industry.
    The review of the investigation record shows that the Department 
inadvertently excluded from the certification on-site leased workers 
from Meadville Staffing/Career Concepts. The Department has determined 
that these workers were sufficiently under the control of the subject 
to be considered leased workers.
    The intent of the Department's certification is to include all 
workers of the Adamsville, Pennsylvania location of the subject firm 
who were secondarily affected as a supplier of gaskets and seals for 
the automobile industry.
    Accordingly, the Department is amending this certification to 
include workers leased from Meadville Staffing/Career Concepts working 
on-site at the Adamsville, Pennsylvania location of the subject firm.
    The amended notice applicable to TA-W-64,806 is hereby issued as 
follows:

    All workers of Garvin Industries, a division of Guarantee 
Specialties, Inc., including on-site leased workers from Meadville 
Staffing/Career Concepts, Adamsville, Pennsylvania, who became 
totally or partially separated from employment on or after January 
2, 2008 through April 13, 2011, are eligible to apply for adjustment 
assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also 
eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under 
Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 29th day of June 2009.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
 [FR Doc. E9-16607 Filed 7-13-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 00134

- CV

Mark Lee Newby

v.

Dianne Marie Uhl §
§
§
§ From t he 233rd District Court

o f Tarrant County ( 324

- 460819

- 09 )

November 15 , 2012

P er C uriam



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that
the appeal should be dismissed as moot . It is ordered that the appeal is

dismissed as moot

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM2 

## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 00134

- CV

MARK LEE NEWBY APPELLANT

V.

DIANNE MARIE UHL APPELLEE

----------
FROM THE 233RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

---------- 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

----------
The trial court signed an order on March 9, 2012, finding Appellant Mark
Lee Newby in criminal and civil contempt, committing him to jail
, and ordering

him to pay child support and health expense reimbursement arrearages. Newby
filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging the contempt findings, and
we struck the portion of the order holding Newby in criminal contempt and

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.3

modified the civil contempt part of the order. See In re Newby , 370 S.W.3d 463,

4 70

– 71 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 20 12, orig. proceeding )

. In this dir ect appeal of the March 9, 2012 order, Newby does not challenge

the p art of the order awarding arrearage s to Appellee Dianne Marie Uhl. See

In re B.A.T. , No. 05

- 10

- 00593

- CV, 2010 WL 3991426, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas

Oct. 11, 2010, no pet.) (mem. op.) (―Although a party may not challenge a
judgment of contempt by direct appeal, a party may appeal a final arrearage
order provided the notice of appeal is timely filed.‖). Instead, he mere ly argues that he should be released from jail.
Uhl has filed a motion to dismiss this appeal, arguing that the appeal is
moot because the trial court ordered Newby released from jail on October 12,

2012. Uhl attached to the motion an ―Order of Release from Jail‖ signed by the

trial court on October 12, 2012. Therefore , n otwithstanding that a direct appeal is
not the appropriate method to challenge a contempt judgment
, 2 the trial court’s

October 12, 2012 order mooted the issue raised in this appeal . W e dismiss this
appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

2 See Cadle Co. v. Lobingier , 50 S.W.3d 662 , 671 (Tex. App.

— Fort Worth 2001 , pet denied) (stating that a contempt judgment is reviewable only via a petition for writ of habeas corpus (if the contemnor is confined) or a petiti on for writ of mandamus ( if no confinement is involved)); see also Beeler v. Fuqua , 351 S.W.3d 428, 433 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 2011, pet. denied) (―We lack jurisdiction over a direct appeal from a contempt order, even if the contempt order is appealed along wi th a judgment that is appealable.‖).4

PANEL: MEIER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GARDNER
, J.

DELIVERED: November 15 , 201 2
**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 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of MH&SC, Incorporated (the
“Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that the Company’s
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the
“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) , as
      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
      contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operation of the Company.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, another
      document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature
      that
      appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
      statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company. and
      will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission or its staff upon request.





/s/
                Cory HeitzCory
                Heitz, President, Principal Executive Officer,Principal
                Financial Officer and PrincipalAccounting
                Officer
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1282 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal certain rules related 

to the determination of unrelated business taxable income. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 2, 2019 

Mr. CRUZ (for himself and Mrs. SHAHEEN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal 

certain rules related to the determination of unrelated 

business taxable income. 

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 ‘‘Preserve Charities and 

5 Houses of Worship Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 1282 IS

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF REQUIREMENT THAT UNRELATED BUSI2 NESS TAXABLE INCOME BE COMPUTED SEPA3 RATELY FOR EACH TRADE OR BUSINESS AC4 TIVITY. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 512(a) of the Internal 

6 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking paragraph 

7 (6). 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 this section shall take effect as if included in section 

10 13702 of Public Law 115–97. 

11 SEC. 3. REPEAL OF INCREASE OF UNRELATED BUSINESS 

12 TAXABLE INCOME BY CERTAIN DISALLOWED 

13 FRINGE BENEFITS. 

14 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 512(a) of the Internal 

15 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking paragraph 

16 (7). 

17 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

18 this section shall take effect as if included in section 

19 13703 of Public Law 115–97. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Case 2:10-cv-06297-CCC -JAD Document 30 Filed 08/08/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 314
Case 2:10-cv-06297-CCC -JAD Document 30 Filed 08/08/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 315