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

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2495

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the State of Ohio

the Senecaville National Fish Hatchery.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 23, 1993

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

Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

A BILL

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey to the

State of Ohio the Senecaville National Fish Hatchery.

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

3 SECTION 1. CONVEYANCE OF SENECAVILLE NATIONAL

4 FISH HATCHERY.

5 (a) CONVEYANCE AUTHORIZED.—Notwithstanding

6 any other provision of law and within 180 days after the

7 date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the

8 Interior shall convey to the State of Ohio without reim9 bursement all right, title, and interest of the United States
2

•HR 2495 IH

1 in and to the property known as the Senecaville National

2 Fish Hatchery, located in Senecaville, Ohio, including—

3 (1) all easements and water rights relating to

4 that property, and

5 (2) all land, improvements, and related personal

6 property comprising that hatchery.

7 (b) USE OF PROPERTY.—All property and interests

8 conveyed under this section shall be used by the Ohio De9 partment of Natural Resources for the Ohio fishery re10 sources management program.

11 (c) REVERSIONARY INTEREST.—All right, title, and

12 interest in and to all property and interests conveyed

13 under this section shall revert to the United States on any

14 date on which any of the property or interests are used

15 other than for the Ohio fishery resources management

16 program.

Æ
Exhibit 12.1

                            CHARTWELL RE CORPORATION
                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (dollars in thousands)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                    Year ended December 31,
                                                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     1998       1997         1996        1995         1994
                                                    ------     -------     -------      -------      -------
<S>                                              <C>         <C>          <C>          <C>         <C>    
Earnings Before Fixed Charges:
Income (loss) from continuing operations   
before income taxes............................  $  45,527   $  37,874    $  32,520    $  8,939    $  (5,120)
Interest and debt expense......................     13,281      12,050        9,412       7,734        6,580
Interest portion of rental expense.............        840         943          462         244          224
                                                  ========   =========    =========    ========    ==========
Earnings before fixed charges..................  $  59,648   $  50,867    $  42,394    $ 16,917    $   1,684
                                                  ========   =========    =========    ========    ==========

Fixed Charges:
Interest and debt expense......................  $   3,281   $  12,050    $   9,412    $  7,734    $   6,580
Interest portion of rental expense.............        840         943          462         244          224
                                                  ========   =========    =========    ========    =========
Fixed charges..................................  $  14,121   $  12,993    $   9,874    $  7,978    $   6,804
                                                  ========   =========    =========    ========    =========
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges.............      4.22x       3.91x        4.29x       2.12x        0.25x
                                                  ========   =========    =========    ========    =========

</TABLE>
#### John G. BRANCA, Special Administrator of the Estate of Michael J. Jackson; et al., Plaintiffs-counter-defendants-Appellees, v. HEAL THE WORLD FOUNDATION, a California corporation and United Fleet, a California corporation, Defendants-counter-claimants-Appellants. John G. Branca, Special Administrator of the Estate of Michael J. Jackson; et al., Plaintiffs-counter-defendants-Appellees, v. Heal the World Foundation, a California corporation and United Fleet, a California corporation, Defendants-counter-claimants-Appellants.

Nos. 11-56926, 11-57048.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted March 5, 2014.

Filed April 14, 2014.

Nina Diana Boyajian, Vincent H. Chief-fo, Greenberg Traurig LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs-counter-defendants-Ap-pellees.

Before: PREGERSON, PAEZ, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Defendants Heal the World Foundation and United Fleet appeal the district *522court’s denial of Defendants’ motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) seeking relief from the judgment entered against them. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

1. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendants’ Rule 60(b) motion. *See United States v. Chapman,*642 F.3d 1236, 1240 (9th Cir.2011). First, the district court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that no relief was warranted under Rule 60(b)(2) because the purported new evidence was discovered prior to the entry of judgment. *See Jones v. AerolChem Corp.,*921 F.2d 875, 878 (9th Cir.1990). Second, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief under Rule 60(b)(4) because the district court’s amended judgment only bound Melissa Johnson in her official capacity as an officer of Defendants. *See*Fed.R.Civ.P. 65(d)(2); *N.L.R.B. v. Sequoia Dist. Council of Carpenters, AFL-CIO,*568 F.2d 628, 633-34 (9th Cir.1977). Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion under Rule 60(b)(6) because, notwithstanding any representations by Defendants’ attorney that the Settlement Agreement that Johnson signed was non-binding, the agreement was only 6 pages long and was expressly labeled as “binding,” “final,” and “enforceable.” Thus, enforcement of the agreement was not manifestly unjust. *Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., Inc.,*452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir.2006).

2. Because we conclude that relief from the Settlement Agreement and resulting judgment is not warranted under Rule 60(b), we need .not resolve Defendants’ other arguments regarding whether the district court properly (1) dismissed Defendants’ counterclaims, and (2) entered a preliminary injunction against Defendants. *See Slaven v. Am. Trading Transp. Co., Inc.,*146 F.3d 1066, 1070 (9th Cir.1998).

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                            4096
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    92112
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1134
<INVENTORY>                                     145937
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                266332
<PP&E>                                          833554
<DEPRECIATION>                                  176520
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  986527
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           157872
<BONDS>                                         235000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           258
<OTHER-SE>                                      348703
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    986527
<SALES>                                         223003
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                223003
<CGS>                                           195284
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   195284
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                9518
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   2800
<INCOME-TAX>                                      1014
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               1786
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      1786
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                    
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               NOV-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                    AUG-31-1997
<CASH>                              425,662
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                       777,302
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                         700,546
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  2,329,040
<PP&E>                            1,768,935
<DEPRECIATION>                      563,645
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    4,409,451
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             1,321,284
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               8
<COMMON>                              1,123
<OTHER-SE>                        3,224,581
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      4,409,451
<SALES>                           4,533,411
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  6,378,393
<CGS>                             1,961,457
<TOTAL-COSTS>                     4,836,934
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                     58,455
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   66,925
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (419,998)
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              (1,139,560)
<DISCONTINUED>                     (161,749)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     881,311
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                       (465,865)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          (.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          (.42)
                                

</TABLE>
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

BARBARA J. CHAMPAGNE f/k/a BARBARA J. ROMANOW,

Appellant,

v.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON,

Appellee.

No. 4D16-2172

[December 7, 2017]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Martin H. Colin, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

2012CA018559XXXXMB.

Kendrick Almaguer and Arthur E. Alves, II, of The Ticktin Law Group, 

PLLC, Deerfield Beach, for appellant.

Marjorie H. Levine of Clarfield, Okon & Salomone, P.L., West Palm 

Beach, and Jacqueline J. Brown of McCabe, Weisberg & Conway, LLC, 

West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, MAY and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Evelyn L. MIDDLETON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; Department of Treasury, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 10-1978.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 18, 2011.

Decided: Jan. 25, 2011.

Evelyn L. Middleton, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Lynn Watt, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees.

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Evelyn Middleton appeals the district court’s order dismissing her 28 U.S.C. § 2042 (2006) action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *See Middleton v. United States,*No. 4:10-cv-00088-JBF-FBS (E.D.Va. Aug. 19, 2010). We dispense with oral argument *689because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
Exhibit 10.3 Agreement - IFW / President, RE: potential deferred compensation


    Exhibit
      10.3

    


    AGREEMENT

    


    


    AGREEMENT
      dated this 15 day of July 2006, by and between International Food and Wine
      Consultants, Inc. (hereinafter “IFWC”), a Nevada Corporation, with offices
      located at 201 East 28th
      Street,
      New York, New York 10016 and Mary Beth Clark, President of IFWC. 

    


    WHEREAS,
      IFWC is
      about to file a Registration Statement with the United States Securities and
      Exchange Commission (hereinafter the “SEC”) on Form SB-2 and has filed an
      Exhibit 10.2 to such Registration Statement regarding methods of payment of
      offering expenses; and

    


    WHEREAS,
      such
      Registration Statement includes in the “Management’s Discussion and Analysis or
      Plan of Operation” section, a specific discussion of IFWC’s cash requirements
      for the next twelve (12) months (exclusive of offering expenses) and its
      specific viable plans to meet such requirements.

    


    NOW,
      THEREFORE,
      it is
      herewith agreed as follows: 

    


    The
      undersigned, as President of IFWC herewith agrees to defer IFWC compensation
      otherwise payable to him so as to permit IFWC to remain viable and further
      agrees to loan IFWC amounts necessary to meet IFWC’s expenses if sufficient
      revenues are not generated therefore to the extent that gross profits are
      insufficient to pay IFWC’s costs and expenses. If and when loaned, the loan will
      be evidenced by a non-interest bearing unsecured corporate note to be treated
      as
      a loan until repaid, if and when IFWC has the financial resources to do
      so.

    


    The
      parties hereto understand that the above constitutes a binding Agreement and
      that the contents thereof are referred to in the aforesaid Registration
      Statement in both the “Management’s Discussion and Analysis or Plan of
      Operation” section. 


    
      
        
        

      

      
        1

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    


    The
      above
      constitutes the entire Agreement between the parties hereto.

     

           
IN
      WITNESS WHEREOF,
      the
      parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the
      15 day
      of
      July 2006. 

    


     

    International
      Food and Wine Consultants, Inc.

    


    


    /s/
      Mary Beth Clark

     

    Mary
      Beth
      Clark, President

    


    /s/
      Mark Beth Clark

     

    Mary
      Beth
      Clark, Individually

     

    2
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2387

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for increased

medicare reimbursement for physician assistants, to increase the delivery

of health services in health professional shortage areas, and for other

purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 10, 1993

Mr. TOWNS (for himself and Mr. COYNE) introduced the following bill; which

was referred jointly to the Committees on Ways and Means and Energy

and Commerce

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide

for increased medicare reimbursement for physician assistants, to increase the delivery of health services in

health professional shortage areas, and for other purposes.

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 ‘‘Physician Assistant

5 Incentive Act of 1993’’.
2

•HR 2387 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCREASED MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT FOR PHY2 SICIAN ASSISTANTS.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1842(b)(12)(A)(ii) of the

4 Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395u(b)(12)(A)(ii)) is

5 amended.

6 (1) in subclause (I), by striking ‘‘65 percent’’

7 and inserting ‘‘65 percent, or in the case of physi8 cian assistant services 97 percent’’; and

9 (2) in subclause (II), by striking ‘‘or for serv10 ices furnished’’ and all that follows through ‘‘1848’’

11 and inserting ‘‘or for services of a physician assist12 ant 97 percent of the fee schedule amount specified

13 in section 1848 for the same service performed by

14 a physician or for services of a nurse practitioner

15 the fee schedule amount specified in such section’’.

16 (b) BONUS PAYMENT FOR SERVICES PROVIDED IN

17 HEALTH PROFESSIONAL SHORTAGE AREAS.—Section

18 1833(m) (42 U.S.C. 1395l(m)) is amended—

19 (1) by inserting ‘‘(1)’’ after ‘‘(m)’’; and

20 (2) by adding at the end the following new

21 paragraph:

22 ‘‘(2) In the case of services of a physician assistant,

23 furnished to an individual, described in paragraph (1), in

24 an area that is a health professional shortage area as de25 scribed in such paragraph, in addition to the amount oth26 erwise paid under this part, there shall also be paid to
3

•HR 2387 IH

1 such service provider (or to an employer in the cases de2 scribed in clause (C) of section 1842(b)(6) (on a monthly

3 or quarterly basis) from the Federal Supplementary Medi4 cal Trust Fund an amount equal to 10 percent of the pay5 ment amount for the service under this part.’’.

6 (c) REMOVAL OF RESTRICTION ON SETTINGS.—Sec7 tion 1861(s)(2)(K)(i) of such Act (42 U.S.C.

8 1395x(s)(2)(K)(i) is amended by striking ‘‘(I) in a hos9 pital’’ and all that follows through ‘‘shortage area’’.

10 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

11 this section shall apply to services furnished on or after

12 July 1, 1993.

Æ
# Missouri Court of Appeals

Southern District

MAY 30, 2014

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 84.16(b).

1. Case No. SD32869

Re: ROGER R. RUSSELL, Movant-Appellant,

v. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent.

2. Case No. SD32868

Re: RICHARD L. SIMMONS, Movant-Appellant,

vs. STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent-Respondent.

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED PURSUANT TO RULE 30.25(b).

1. Case No. SD32944

Re: STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent,

vs. LOUIS JAY DANIELSON, Defendant-Appellant.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 10.6.5 Quaker City Federal Savings and Loan Association Three Year
               Employment Agreement Renewal and Extension Acknowledgment between
               Quaker City Federal Savings and Loan Association and Frederic R.
               McGill dated July 1, 1999.



               QUAKER CITY FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION
                        THREE YEAR EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
                     RENEWAL AND EXTENSION ACKNOWLEDGMENT



Name of Executive:      Frederic R. (Rick) McGill
                  -----------------------------------------



The undersigned executive does hereby acknowledge that, at their regularly
scheduled meeting  on June 17, 1999, the Board of Directors of Quaker City
Federal Savings and Loan Association acted to renew and extend the Quaker City
Federal Savings and Loan Association Three Year Employment Agreement with the
undersigned executive to a full thirty-six (36) month term, until June 30, 2002.


Dated this ___1st___ day of ______July___________, A.D., ____1999____________



                                               QUAKER CITY FEDERAL SAVINGS AND
                                               LOAN ASSOCIATION



/s/Frederic R. McGill                          By: /s/Jerome L. Thomas
----------------------------------------          ------------------------------
Executive                                         Chairman of the Board
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 36 (Thursday, February 22, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 11118]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-4325]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 01-380, MM Docket No. 00-118, RM-9757]


Digital Television Broadcast Service; Lexington, KY

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the request of WKYT Licensee Corporation, 
licensee of station WKYT-TV, substitutes DTV channel 13 for DTV channel 
59 at Lexington, Kentucky. See 65 FR 41620, July 6, 2000. DTV channel 
13 can be allotted to Lexington in compliance with the principle 
community coverage requirements of Section 73.625(a) at reference 
coordinates (38-02-23 N. and 84-24-10 W.), with a power of 5.0, HAAT of 
300 meters and with a DTV service population of 758 thousand.
    With this action, this proceeding is terminated.

DATES: Effective April 2, 2001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-1600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 00-118, adopted February 15, 2001, and 
released February 16, 2001. The full text of this Commission decision 
is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC. The 
complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, 
Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Television, Digital television broadcasting.

    Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

47 CFR PART 73--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.


Sec. 73.622  [Amended]

    2. Section 73.622(b), the Table of Digital Television Allotments 
under Kentucky, is amended by removing DTV channel 59 and adding DTV 
channel 13 at Lexington.

Federal Communications Commission.
Barbara A. Kreisman,
Chief, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 01-4325 Filed 2-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21


                                  SUBSIDIARIES

Amusement Management Florida, Inc., a Florida corporation

Dallas Castle MGPC, Inc., a Texas corporation

Fresno MGPC, Inc., a California corporation

Malibu Grand Prix Consulting, Inc., a California corporation

Malibu Grand Prix Corporation, a Delaware corporation

Malibu Grand Prix Design & Manufacturing, Inc., a California corporation

Malibu Grand Prix Financial Services, Inc., a California corporation

Malibu Management Company, a Georgia corporation

MGP Special, Inc., a California corporation

Mountasia Development Company, a Georgia corporation

Mountasia Family Entertainment Centers, Inc., a Texas corporation

Mountasia Properties, Inc., a Delaware corporation

Mountasia - MEI Limited Company, Inc., a California corporation

Mountasia - MEI California, Inc., a California corporation

Mountasia - MEI International, Inc., a Georgia corporation

North Hollywood Castle MGPC, Inc., a California corporation

Off Track Management, Inc., a California corporation

Portland MGPC, Inc., an Oregon corporation

Puente Hills MGPC, Inc., a California corporation

Puente Hills Showboat MGPC, Inc., a California corporation

Redondo Beach Castle MGPC, Inc., a California corporation

Redwood City Castle MGPC, Inc., a California corporation

Redwood City MGPC, Inc., a California corporation

San Antonio Castle MGPC, Inc., a Texas corporation

San Antonio MGPC, Inc., a Texas corporation

San Diego MGPC, Inc., a California corporation

Tucson MGPC, Inc., an Arizona corporation