alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CIRCUIT COURT OF ARLINGTON COUNTY

#### Health Systems Agency of Northern Virginia, Inc. v. James B. Kenley, Commissioner, State Dept. of Health

June 23, 1983

Case No. (Law) 24179

By JUDGE CHARLES H. DUFF

For decision is the Demurrer filed by the State Health Commissioner and a Motion to Dismiss filed by Arlington Hospital, the latter being granted leave to intervene in this cause on June 10, 1983. The issue raised by both pleadings is identical and they will be considered together. The precise question presented from the Defendant’s viewpoint is whether the Administrative Process Act and Part 2A of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia govern an appeal from a final decision of the State Health Commissioner. If they do, then it is clear that the Plaintiff has failed to comply with the jurisdictional prerequisites of Rule 2A:2 (notice of appeal filed with the agency secretary) and Rule 2A:4 (petition for appeal).

On the other hand, the Plaintiff or Appellant contends with equal vigor that Section 32.1-102.7 provides a clear and adequate appeals process, that actual notice of the appeal was given within the thirty days and that, accordingly, the Administrative Process Act and Rules Part 2A do not govern this type of an appeal.

*102I have carefully considered the able briefs presented, as well as the arguments at hearing, and am of the opinion that the more logical interpretation of the pertinent statutes leads to the conclusion that Section 32.1-102.7 does not provide an adequate form or basis for Court review of an Administrative decision and therefore the appropriate Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia provide the proper manner for perfecting an appeal from a final decision of the State Health Commissioner. (See 9-6.14:16)

Virginia Code 32.1-24 specifically provides that the Administrative Process Act shall govern the procedures for rendering all case decisions unless an exemption is provided from the Act. No such exemption appears in 32.1-102.7 and, in fact, that very section provides that an aggrieved applicant may obtain a review as provided in Section 9-6.14:17 of the Code. That Section is a part of the Administrative Process Act.

Furthermore, paragraph B of 32.1-102.7 mandates that the Department shall transmit to the appropriate Court all of the original papers within five days after "receipt of Notice of Appeal." The only provision for the Department or Agency to receive the Notice of Appeal is found in Rule 2A:2, wherein the appealing party shall file within thirty days "with the agency secretary" a Notice of Appeal. To the extent that Section 32.1-102.7 provides an appeals right, the form and details of executing such right is inadequate and thus pursuant to 9-6.14:16(ii) the Administrative Process Act and Part 2A of the Rules should govern.

Finally, it appears to me to be manifest that the time restrictions provided in the Rules are jurisdictional and if not met such breach is fatal. For these reasons the Demurrer and Motion to Dismiss will both be granted. The deficiency cannot be corrected by an amended pleading and, accordingly, this ruling is with prejudice.
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.17



AMENDMENT
TO THE LIFE INSURANCE ENDORSEMENT METHOD SPLIT
DOLLAR PLAN AGREEMENT FOR M. LANCE HALL
THIS AMENDMENT, made and entered into this 18th day of December, 2009, by and between Community Trust Bank, a bank organized and existing under the laws of the State of Louisiana (hereinafter referred to as the “Bank”), and M. Lance Hall, an Executive of the Bank (hereinafter referred to as the “Executive”), shall effectively amend the Community Trust Bank Life Insurance Endorsement Method Split Dollar Plan Agreement dated September 4, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement”) as specifically set forth herein.  Pursuant to Paragraph XVI of the Agreement, the Bank and the Executive hereby adopt the following amendment:
		
	1.) 
	Paragraph VI, “Division of Death Proceeds,” Subparagraph (B), shall be amended to delete the words “sixty-two percent (62%)” and to replace them with the words “eighty percent (80%).”


This Amendment shall be effective the 1st day of January, 2009.  To the extent that any term, provision, or paragraph of the Agreement is not specifically amended herein, or in any other amendment thereto, said term, provision, or paragraph shall remain in full force and effect as set forth in said Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto acknowledge that each has carefully read this Amendment and executed the original thereof on the first day set forth hereinabove, and that, upon execution, each has received a conforming copy.


	
		
	COMMUNITY TRUST BANK

	Ruston, Louisiana

	 
	 

	By:
	/s/ Linda W. Tuten

	 
	(Bank Officer other than Insured)

	 
	 

	Title:
	EVP/CPO

	 
	 

	 
	 

	EXECUTIVE

	 
	 

	/s/ M. Lance Hall

	M. Lance Hall
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                5

<S>                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>            3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>        Dec-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>           Jan-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>             MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                                       12447
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                36154
<ALLOWANCES>                                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                             48601
<PP&E>                                                       56092
<DEPRECIATION>                                                5364
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                              189329
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       287563
<BONDS>                                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<COMMON>                                                    103490
<OTHER-SE>                                                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                189329
<SALES>                                                          0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                 0
<CGS>                                                            0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                               143298
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            1767
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            (143298)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        (143298)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                               (143298)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                   0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    0



</TABLE>
<PAGE>

May 4, 2001

Cornell Companies, Inc.
1700 West Loop 610 South
Houston, TX  77027

Re:  Form 10-Q Report for the quarter ended March 31, 2001


Gentlemen/Ladies:

This letter is written to meet the requirements of Regulation S-K calling for
a letter from a registrant's independent accountants whenever there has been
a change in accounting principle or practice.

We have been informed that, as of January 1, 2001, the Company changed from
the expense as incurred method of accounting for certain supplies to the
defer and amortize to expense method. The cost of certain supplies will be
capitalized and amortized over 18 months, a period of time that management
believes represents the useful life of those supplies. According to the
management of the Company, this change was made to better match the cost of
the supplies with the period these same supplies benefit the Company.

A complete coordinated set of financial and reporting standards for
determining the preferability of accounting principles among acceptable
alternative principles has not been established by the accounting profession.
Thus, we cannot make an objective determination of whether the change in
accounting described in the preceding paragraph is to a preferable method.
However, we have reviewed the pertinent factors, including those related to
financial reporting, in this particular case on a subjective basis, and our
opinion stated below is based on our determination made in this manner.

We are of the opinion that the Company's change in method of accounting is to
an acceptable alternative method of accounting, which, based upon the reasons
stated for the change and our discussions with you, is also preferable under
the circumstances in this particular case. In arriving at this opinion, we
have relied on the business judgment and business planning of your
management.

We have not audited the application of this change to the financial
statements of any period subsequent to December 31, 2000.  Further, we have
not examined and do not express an opinion with respect to your financial
statements for the three months ended March 31, 2001.


Very truly yours,
/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
Arthur Andersen LLP
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7814
MILFORD JUNIOR MASON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CARL F. CREEDEN, Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-96- 3176-L) Submitted: March 13, 1997 Decided: March 20, 1997 Before HALL, ERVIN, and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Milford Junior Mason, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Milford Mason, a Maryland inmate, appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e) (West Supp. Sept. 1996, Pamphlet 3). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Mason v. Creeden , No. CA-96-3176-L (D. Md. Oct. 23, 1996). Mason's motion for appointment of counsel is denied. 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
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

§

IN RE: No. 08

- 16

- 00217

- CR

§

WILLIAM BROWDER,

Relator. §

§ AN ORIGINAL PROCEEDI NG

IN MANDAMUS

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus

against the 109th District Court of Andrews County, Texas, and concludes that Relator’s petition

for writ of mandamus should be denied. We therefore deny the petition for w rit of mandamus, in

accordance with the opinion of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 31ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2016.

STEVEN L. HUGHES, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hugh es, JJ.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 23, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-51226 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus FRANCISCO GARCIA-SALAZAR, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. EP-02-CR-1171-ALL-PR

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Francisco Garcia-Salazar appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. He contends that the sentence is invalid because it exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). Garcia-Salazar complains that his sentence was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b). He argues that the sentencing provision is unconstitutional.No. 02-51226 -2- Alternatively, Garcia-Salazar contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence was an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Garcia-Salazar acknowledges that his arguments are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his arguments for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM AMERICAN
UNITED GLOBAL, INC., YEAR ENDED JULY 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                                 PRO-FORMA
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                       34,534
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                      4,574
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         107,795
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                             0
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 146,904
<COMMON>                                           116
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       49,954
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                           (34,215)
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                  15,862
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          7
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                             1,156
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                              87,807
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                      2,827
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                    67
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  39,185
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  146,904
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      163,478
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             1,354
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     163,048
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     163,048
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                          (924)
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             (4,470)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 (5,394)
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         4,197
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,591)
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         24
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  (9,615)
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                             248
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.85)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.85)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 298 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 298

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 500 East Whitestone Boulevard in Cedar Park, Texas, as the ``Army 
         Specialist Matthew Troy Morris Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 18, 2011

  Mr. Carter introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 500 East Whitestone Boulevard in Cedar Park, Texas, as the ``Army 
         Specialist Matthew Troy Morris Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. ARMY SPECIALIST MATTHEW TROY MORRIS POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 500 East Whitestone Boulevard in Cedar Park, Texas, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Army Specialist Matthew Troy Morris 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 ``Army 
Specialist Matthew Troy Morris Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.1



Amendment No. 8
to the 
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation 
401(k) Savings and Investment Plan
(Restated effective January 1, 2016)






The Restated Edwards Lifesciences Corporation 401(k) Savings and Investment Plan, effective January 1, 2016 (the "Plan"), as amended by Amendment No. 1 executed on May 2, 2016, Amendment No. 2 executed on December 19, 2016, Amendment No. 3 executed on February 24, 2017, Amendment No. 4 executed on February 24, 2017, Amendment No. 5 executed on October 27, 2017, Amendment No. 6 executed on December 19, 2017, and Amendment No. 7 executed on December 19, 2017, is hereby further amended effective January 1, 2018 as follows:


		
	1.
	Section 4.1(b) is amended in its entirety by the following:




i.Matching Contributions in an amount equal to (i) 100% of the aggregate amount of each such Participant’s Pay Deferral Contributions (not including Catch Up Contributions) made in accordance with Section 5.1 for such Plan Year, up to the first 3% of such Participant’s Compensation and (ii) 50% of the aggregate amount of each such Participant’s Pay Deferral Contributions (not including Catch Up Contributions) made in accordance with Section 5.1 for such Plan Year on the next 2% of such Participant’s  Compensation.  Effective July 1, 2018,  Matching Contributions shall be contributed in an amount equal to (i) 100% of the aggregate amount of each such Participant’s Pay Deferral Contributions (not including Catch Up Contributions) made in accordance with Section 5.1 for such Plan Year, up to the first 4% of such Participant’s Compensation and (ii) 50% of the aggregate amount of each such Participant’s Pay Deferral Contributions (not including Catch Up Contributions) made in accordance with Section 5.1 for such Plan Year on the next 2% of such Participant’s Compensation.  
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, a duly authorized officer of the Company has caused this Plan to be executed on the 17th day of April, 2018.


	
		
	 
	EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES CORPORATION

	 
	ADMINISTRATIVE AND INVESTMENT COMMITTEE








	
		
	By:
	/s/  Christine Z. McCauley

	 
	Christine Z. McCauley

	Its:
	Chairperson












112551.1
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                      5
<CIK>                                          0001015979
<NAME>                                         HIDENET SECURE ARCHITECHTURES
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     USD

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         0
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               0
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          66712
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     1490
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   0
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0


</TABLE>