alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|                             |   | Percentage |   | Jurisdiction      or State |
|----------------------------------|--------|------------|--------|----------------------------|
| Subsidiaries                     |   | Owned      |   | of Incorporation      |
|                             |   |       |   |                       |
| Provident      Community Bank    |   |       | 100    | %                          | United      States |
|                             |   |       |   |                       |   |
| Provident      Community         |   |       |   |                       |   |
| Bancshares      Capital Trust I  |   |       | 100    | %                          | Delaware |
|                             |   |       |   |                       |   |
| Provident      Community         |   |       |   |                       |   |
| Bancshares      Capital Trust II |   |       | 100    | %                          | Delaware |

----
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

FRAZIER UNIQUE HOMES, LLC,

Appellant,

v.

ESTATE OF JANIE SINGLETARY,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-219

[August 24, 2017]

Appeal of a non-final order from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth 

Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Marc H. Gold, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

PRC-10-1507 (60J).

Edward J. Jennings and Jenna L. Wulf of Edward J. Jennings, P.A., 

Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Marc J. Tannen of Marc Jay Tannen, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, FORST and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3299 

To amend title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act to apply to retireeonly health plans the extension of dependent health coverage for individuals through 26 years of age provided for by the Patient Protection 

and Affordable Care Act. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 1, 2011 

Mr. HINCHEY (for himself, Mr. FILNER, Mr. CLAY, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, 

Mr. RANGEL, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Ms. MOORE, and Mr. HOLT) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means and 

Education and the Workforce, for a period to be subsequently determined 

by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall 

within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title XXVII of the Public Health Service Act 

to apply to retiree-only health plans the extension of 

dependent health coverage for individuals through 26 

years of age provided for by the Patient Protection and 

Affordable Care Act. 

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


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3299 IH

1 SECTION 1. APPLICATION OF DEPENDENT HEALTH COV2 ERAGE EXTENSION UNDER PPACA TO RE3 TIREE-ONLY HEALTH PLANS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2714 of the Public Health 

5 Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–14) is amended— 

6 (1) in subsection (a), by inserting ‘‘(including a 

7 group health plan and health insurance coverage de8 scribed in subsection (d))’’ after ‘‘health insurance 

9 coverage’’; and 

10 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub11 section: 

12 ‘‘(d) RETIREE-ONLY PLANS.—A group health plan 

13 and health insurance coverage described in this subsection, 

14 with respect to a plan year, is a group health plan (and 

15 group health insurance coverage offered in connection with 

16 a group health plan) that on the first day of such plan 

17 year does not have any participants who are current em18 ployees.’’. 

19 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

20 (1) ERISA.—Section 732(a) of the Employee 

21 Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (29 U.S.C. 

22 1191a(a)) is amended by inserting ‘‘and section 

23 2714 of the Public Health Service Act, as made ap24 plicable by section 715’’ after ‘‘other than section 

25 711’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3299 IH

1 (2) IRC.—Section 9831(a)(2) of the Internal 

2 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ‘‘in 

3 the case of any such requirements other than section 

4 2714 of the Public Health Service Act, as made ap5 plicable by section 9815,’’ before ‘‘any group health 

6 plan’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6180

ANTHONY MAURICE SMALLS, 

Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

ACTING WARDEN JEFF NINES; STATE OF MARYLAND, 

Respondents - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Catherine C. Blake, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-01884-CCB) 

Submitted: April 14, 2022 Decided: April 19, 2022

Before DIAZ and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Anthony Maurice Smalls, Petitioner Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Anthony Maurice Smalls seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying on the 

merits his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions for relief from its prior order dismissing as 

successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate 

of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional 

right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 

473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smalls has not made 

the requisite showing. In his Rule 60(b) motions, Smalls challenged the validity of his 

state convictions and the merits of the district court’s determination that his prior petition 

had to be dismissed as successive. Accordingly, the motions should have been construed 

as a successive § 2254 petition. See Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 531-32 (2005); 

United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 397-99 (4th Cir. 2015). Absent prefiling 

authorization from this court, the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Smalls’ 
3

successive § 2254 petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). Accordingly, we deny a certificate 

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FE BRUARY 14, 2020

NO. 03

- 19

- 00044

- CR

In re Jamie Fletcher

APPEAL FROM THE 299TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BA KER, AND KELLY

A FFIRMED

-- O PINION BY J USTICE BAKER

This is an appeal from the order den ying d efendant’s m otion for DNA testing entered by the trial

court. Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court h olds that there was no

reversible error in the trial court’s order

. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s order

.

Because appellant is indigent and u nable to pay costs, no adjud ica t i on of costs is made.
#### ALBERT C. FINK, PLAINTIFF, v. LOIS C. FINK, DEFENDANT.

Superior Court of New Jersey Chancery Division

Decided May 25, 1954.

*Mr. Julius N. Asch,*attorney for plaintiff.

*532Nimmo, J. C. C.

(temporarily assigned). This is a divorce case alleging desertion of plaintiff by defendant for the statutory period of two years which is uncontested.

The parties were married April 15, 1950 and residence in this State was proven. No children were born of the marriage; in fact, this is the basis of plaintiff’s complaint.

Plaintiff testified that after the marriage he and his wife agreed to the use of contraceptive intercourse as they could not afford a child just then. Continuing, plaintiff testified that this arrangement was carried on for a year after the marriage, when plaintiff then asserted he wanted a child and that his wife would not permit non-contraceptive intercourse. Plaintiff’s mother testified on his behalf that about two years after the marriage her son complained to her about his wife’s sexual behavior. The mother testified she spoke to the defendant wife about her son’s feelings in the matter, whereupon defendant admitted to her all the things plaintiff had testified to about the defendant’s insistence upon having intercourse with the use of contraceptives.

Plaintiff relies upon *Kreyling v. Kreyling,*20 *N. J. Misc.*52*(Ch.*1942). The instant case differs in many respects from the case cited. Here we have the husband, who is the plaintiff, who lived as Advisory Master Mathews terms in a state of “licensed concubinage” until his wife, the defendant, left him but six months before the trial of the case. There seems to be no question that defendant did actually desert plaintiff in November 1953 and it is inescapable to surmise that the date of the contraceptive desertion is given to accelerate the date of the cause of action for desertion. In the *Kreyling*case it was the aggrieved party, the plaintiff wife, who left her husband and occupied a separate bed from his by bringing one in from her mother’s home, while here both plaintiff and defendant occupied the same bed until the defendant wife left.

The cases cited in the *Kreyling*case need no comment here as there is no question that the withdrawal of the sexual relationship by either party amounts to desertion or that the continued use of contraceptives by either against the will of *533either one amounts to the same thing. The difficulty lies in the proofs thereof and the normal and natural reaction of men and women. Here it is the man who uses the contraceptive, and it is he who complains and it is his wife who leaves him.

 The State is a party to every divorce for, as a public policy, divorces are frowned upon and can only be obtained upon sound and convincing proofs that the requirements of the statutes and the law are met. This court is constrained to find that such has not been met upon the testimony of the plaintiff and his mother; therefore, the complaint will be dismissed.

A judgment of dismissal will accordingly be entered.
111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2632 

AN ACT 

To amend title 4, United States Code, to encourage the 

display of the flag of the United States on National 

Korean War Veterans Armistice Day. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 2632 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Korean War Veterans 

3 Recognition Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. DISPLAY OF FLAG ON NATIONAL KOREAN WAR VET5 ERANS ARMISTICE DAY. 

6 Section 6(d) of title 4, United States Code, is amend7 ed by inserting ‘‘National Korean War Veterans Armistice 

8 Day, July 27;’’ after ‘‘July 4;’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 21, 2009. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2632 

AN ACT 

To amend title 4, United States Code, to encourage 

National Korean War Veterans Armistice Day. the display of the flag of the United States on
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1

                                 AMENDMENT TO
                            ATRIA COMMUNITIES, INC.
                      1996 STOCK OWNERSHIP INCENTIVE PLAN


(a)  The first sentence of Section 4.1 of the Plan is hereby deleted and the 
     following substituted in its place:


  "Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 4.3, the number of Shares
  reserved for issuance upon the exercise of Awards and the payment of benefits
  in connection with Awards is 2,336,924 Shares (being an amount equal to 10% of
  the Company's issued and outstanding Shares on the date hereof), plus 10% of
  any increase (other than any increase due to Shares issued pursuant to the
  Plan or the Atria Communities, Inc. Non-Employee Directors 1996 Stock
  Incentive Plan) in the number of authorized and issued Shares in excess of
  23,368,237 Shares."

(b)  Section 6.1 of the Plan is hereby amended by adding at the end thereof the
     following:


  "Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the maximum number of Shares
  with respect to which ISOs may be granted under the Plan shall not exceed
  2,000,000 Shares."
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsection (a) and (b) of Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code)
  (a)
    
    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended March 31,
2005 (the Report) of the Company 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.
 November 23, 2005
    
    /s/ CHARLES R. WALDRONCharles R. WaldronSenior Vice President, Chief 
     Financial Officer and Treasurer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from CSA Income
Fund Limited Partnership IV's Statement of Financial Position as of
December 31, 1999 and Statement of Operations for the twelve months then ended
and is qualified in its entirely by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                       3,679,408
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  549,834
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                      52,073,878
<DEPRECIATION>                              34,683,355
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,619,765
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,177,423
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                21,619,765
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            15,328,985
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,702,357
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               326,663
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,050,363
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,249,602
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,249,602
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,249,602
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.44
<FN>
<F1>The registrant maintains an unclassified Statement of Financial Position.
</FN>


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RE: APPOINTMENT TO JUDICIAL

CONDUCT BOARD

:

:

:

No. 675

SUPREME COURT RULES DOCKET

 O R D E R

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 21st day of August, 2015, the Honorable P. Kevin 

Brobson, Dauphin County, is hereby appointed as a member of the Judicial Conduct 

Board for a term of four years commencing August 31, 2015.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2654 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2654

  To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on polyethylene HE1878.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 2, 2009

 Mr. Aderholt introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on polyethylene HE1878.

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

SECTION 1. POLYETHYLENE HE1878.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.10.34 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to polyethylene HE1878) is 
amended by striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/2012''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Max Albinder, Respondent, v Crescent Properties, Inc., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[665 NYS2d 879]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Goodman, J.), entered February 6, 1997, which, insofar as appealed from, denied defendants-appellants’ cross motion to extend, nunc pro tunc, their time to comply with a prior conditional preclusion order, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The conditional preclusion order directing defendants to produce various documents was properly enforced in view of defendants’ repeated failure to comply first with plaintiffs requests, and then with the court’s orders, to produce such documents. Defendants’ excuse, that their principal with control over the documents was out of town, is inadequate, given the time defendants had to comply, the absence of evidence of any attempts to locate this principal, and the prejudice any further delay would cause plaintiff *(see, Stepney v New York City Hous. Auth.,*161 AD2d 525). Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Nardelli and Colabella, JJ.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-88,298-02

EX P ARTE IVERY DWAYNE DORSEY, Applicant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 1097367-A IN THE 228th DIST RICT COURT

F ROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1 9 6 7 ). Applicant was convicted of the offense of murder a nd sentenc ed to imprisonment for twenty y ear s. On November 2, 2015, an order desig nating issues was signe d by the trial court. I n response to this Court’s mandamus abate ment order , the district cler k has forwa

rded Applicant’s habea s corpus application. Howeve r, the trial court has not re solved the desig nated issues and enter ed finding s of fac t and conclusions of law. There fore , we rema nd this application to the 228th District Court of Harris C ounty to allow t he trial judge to complete an evidentiary i n v es t i gation and enterfinding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law.

This application will be held in abey ance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The issues shall be resolved within 90 day s o f t h i s o rd er. A supplemental transcr ipt containing all aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of t he court repor ter’s notes from any hear ing or deposition, along with the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be for war ded to this Court within 120 day s of the date of this order. A ny extensions of ti me must be re quested by

the trial cour

t and shall be obtaine d from this Court.

Filed: September

12, 2018 Do not publish
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND IN
THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          91,640
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  505,902
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    143,034
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               837,891
<PP&E>                                         472,397
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,395,970
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          517,056
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           173
<OTHER-SE>                                     404,257
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,395,970
<SALES>                                        949,868
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               949,868
<CGS>                                          800,887
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  800,887
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                67,300
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              29,325
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 52,356
<INCOME-TAX>                                    20,931
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             27,710
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (5,402)
<CHANGES>                                      (3,147)
<NET-INCOME>                                    19,161
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.23


</TABLE>