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

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3390 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3390

  To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of certain drawback 
                                claims.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 6, 2006

  Mr. Vitter introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of certain drawback 
                                claims.

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

SECTION 1. LIQUIDATION OR RELIQUIDATION OF CERTAIN DRAWBACK CLAIMS.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 514 of the Tariff Act of 
1930 (19 U.S.C. 1514) or any other provision of law, the Bureau of 
Customs and Border Protection shall, not later than 90 days after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, liquidate or reliquidate the 
drawback claims, as filed, that are described in subsection (c).
    (b) Payment of Amounts Due.--Any amounts due pursuant to the 
liquidation or reliquidation of the claims described in subsection (c) 
shall be paid not later than 90 days after the date of such liquidation 
or reliquidation.
    (c) Drawback Claims.--The drawback claims referred to in subsection 
(a) are the following:

 
                   Drawback claim number                     Filing date
 
BI6/0993043-2                                                  10/07/97
BI6/1093004-1                                                  10/03/97
BI6/1093044-7                                                  10/10/97
BI6/1093046-2                                                  10/07/97
BI6/1193047-9                                                  10/09/97
BI6/1193048-7                                                  10/09/97
BI6/1293049-4                                                  10/09/97
BI6/0294050-3                                                  11/24/97
BI6/0892003-8                                                  01/23/97
BI6/0892000-4                                                  01/23/97
 

                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1996
<CASH>                                       1,253,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,514,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   139,000
<INVENTORY>                                 21,140,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            28,605,000
<PP&E>                                      16,634,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              11,598,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              36,515,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       17,240,000
<BONDS>                                      2,022,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,529,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,942,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                36,515,000
<SALES>                                     12,098,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            12,098,000
<CGS>                                        8,059,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,436,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             283,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                384,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   131,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            253,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   253,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### § 97.21 Extension of time for a reply.

The time for reply by an applicant to a request by the Office for certain action, shall be extended by the Commissioner only for good and sufficient cause, and for a specified reasonable time. A request for extension and appropriate fee shall be filed on or before the specified time for reply. In no case shall the mere filing of a request for extension require the granting of an extension or state the time for reply.

[58 FR 42435, Aug. 9, 1993, as amended at 61 FR 248, Jan. 4, 1996]
matr-ex1026_18.htm



 

Exhibit 10.26

Summary of 2018 Executive Officer Compensation

The following shows the 2018 annual salary for each of Mattersight’s current executive officers:

 


	
Kelly D. Conway, President and Chief Executive Officer:
	
$
	
425,000

	
Christopher J. Danson, Executive Vice President and Chief Technology Officer:
	
$
	
320,000

	
David R. Gustafson, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer:
	
$
	
325,000

	
David B. Mullen, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer:
	
$
	
325,000




 

Each of these executive officers have target bonus percentages as set forth in their employment agreements with Mattersight and modified with approval of the Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors from time to time.  Additional information concerning the compensation of these executive officers is set forth in the Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A filed by Mattersight Corporation with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Case 1:06-cv-00634-WKW-WC Document 1-6 Filed 07/18/2006 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-00634-WKW-WC Document 1-6 Filed 07/18/2006 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-00634-WKW-WC Document 1-6 Filed 07/18/2006 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-00634-WKW-WC Document 1-6 Filed 07/18/2006 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-00634-WKW-WC Document 1-6 Filed 07/18/2006 Page 5 of 5
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
INCLUDED IN SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>


       
<S>                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>         9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>     DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>          SEP-30-1998

<CASH>                         830,359 
<SECURITIES>                      0    
<RECEIVABLES>                   43,210 
<ALLOWANCES>                      0    
<INVENTORY>                       0    
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               873,569 
<PP&E>                            0    
<DEPRECIATION>                    0    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 873,569 
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           16,688 
<BONDS>                           0    
<COMMON>                          0    
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>             0    
<PREFERRED>                       0    
<OTHER-SE>                     696,770 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   873,569 
<SALES>                           0    
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               133,690 
<CGS>                             0    
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   36,558 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               182,849 
<LOSS-PROVISION>                  0    
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                0    
<INCOME-PRETAX>                (85,717)
<INCOME-TAX>                      0    
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            (86,310)
<DISCONTINUED>                    0    
<EXTRAORDINARY>                   0    
<CHANGES>                         0    
<NET-INCOME>                   (86,310)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                    (1.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                    (1.19)

        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION 

CINCINNATI INSURANCE ) 

COMPANY ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

v. ) CV-3:06-CV-733-MHT

 ) 

JOSEPH DONALD PRATHER and ) 

LINDA PRATHER ) 

 Defendants. ) 

 ) 

CORPORATE/CONFLICT DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 

In accordance with the order of this Court, the undersigned party or parties to the above 

captioned matter do hereby make the following disclosure concerning parent companies, 

subsidiaries, affiliates, partnership, joint ventures, debtor, creditors’ committee, or other entities 

reportable under the provisions of the Middle District of Alabama’s General Order No. 3047: 

□ There are no entities to be reported. 

– or – 

 The following entities are hereby reported: 

 Cincinnati Insurance Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Cincinnati Financial 

Corporation, which is a publicly held company. The Cincinnati Life Insurance Company, The 

Cincinnati Casualty Company and the Cincinnati Indemnity Company are subsidiaries of 

Cincinnati Insurance Company. CinFin Capital Management Company and CFC Investment 

Company are other subsidiaries of The Cincinnati Financial Corporation and may be considered 

affiliated companies to Cincinnati Insurance Company. 

April 12, 2007 

Date s/Jennifer T. Dewees

Jennifer T. Dewees, #ASB1265S35J 

 2001 Park Place North 

 Suite 911 

 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 

 (205) 251-9958

Case 3:06-cv-00733-MHT-TFM Document 24 Filed 04/12/2007 Page 1 of 2
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that a copy of the above and foregoing has been electronically filed on this 

the 12th day of April 2007 to the following: 

Timothy L. Dillard 

Dillard and Associates, LLC 

The Berry Building, Suite 400 

2015 Second Avenue North 

Birmingham, Alabama 35203 

205-251-2823 

dillard&horn@aol.com 

Stephen D. Heninger 

Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC 

P.O. Box 11310 

Birmingham, AL 35202 

205-326-3336 

steph@hgdlawfirm.com 

Steven Bullard 

1405 16th Place 

Valley, AL 36854 

Service by Mail 

 Respectfully Submitted, 

s/Jennifer T. Dewees 

 Jennifer T. Dewees, #ASB1265S35J 

 2001 Park Place North 

 Suite 911 

 Birmingham, Alabama 35203 

 (205) 251-9958 

 Jennifer_Dewees@staffdefense.com

Case 3:06-cv-00733-MHT-TFM Document 24 Filed 04/12/2007 Page 2 of 2
§ 984.22 Trade demand. ( a ) *Inshell.* The quantity of inshell walnuts that the trade will acquire from all handlers during a marketing year for distribution in the United States and its territories.
( b ) *Shelled.* The quantity of shelled walnuts that the trade will acquire from all handlers during a marketing year for distribution in the United States and its territories.
[73 FR 11337, Mar. 3, 2008, as amended at 88 FR 56748, Aug. 21, 2023]
|EXHIBIT
  34.2
|--------------

Report of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm

We have examined managements assertion,
included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Regulation
AB Servicing Criteria, that U.S. Bank National Association (the Company)
complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the
Securities and Exchange Commissions Regulation AB for the Corporate Trust Asset
Backed Securities platform (the Platform) as of and for the year ended December
31, 2006, except for criteria 1122 (d)(1)(i), 1122 (d)(1)(iii), 1122 (d)(2)(i)
through 1122 (d)(2)(vii), 1122 (d)(3)(i) through 1122 (d)(3)(iv), and 1122
(d)(4)(iv) through 1122 (d)(4)(xv), which the Company has determined are not
applicable to the activities performed by them with respect to the servicing
platform covered by this report. Refer to Appendix A of managements assertion
for the asset backed transactions covered by this platform. Management is
responsible for the Companys compliance with those servicing criteria. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion about the
Companys compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in
accordance with standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
(United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence
about the Companys compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and
performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the
circumstances. Our examination included testing of less than all of the
individual asset backed transactions and securities that comprise the platform,
testing of less than all of the servicing activities related to the Platform,
and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and
performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria.
Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and
servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this
report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have
occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the
balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period
covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions.
We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our
examination does not provide a legal determination on the Companys compliance
with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, managements assertion
that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and
for the year ended December 31, 2006, for the Corporate Trust Asset Backed
Securities platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.



|Ernst & Young
      LLP
|-----------------------



|February 26,
  2007
|-------------------

---
#### In the Matter of Benjamin Petrofsky, Respondent, v Allstate Insurance Company, Appellant.

In a proceeding to vacate the award of a master arbitrator, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered February 6, 1980, which, *inter alia,*vacated the master arbitrator’s determination setting aside the arbitrator’s award, and reinstated the arbitrator’s award to petitioner in the principal sum of $4,629.40. Judgment reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, determination of the master arbitrator reinstated, arbitrator’s award vacated and proceeding dismissed. On December 4,1977 petitioner, who was unemployed at the time, suffered physical injuries in an automobile accident. In February of 1978, he submitted a letter from a potential employer to the appellant, his no-fault insurer, stating that the employer had offered petitioner a position at a salary of $300 per week, effective January 3, 1978, but that the position had been filled by someone else when petitioner was unable to start work on that date. The appellant honored the claim for loss of earnings. Petitioner suffered a heart attack on April 30,1978. Appellant discontinued payments as of that date, taking the position that petitioner’s disability was now due to an uninsured cause. Petitioner’s claim for loss of earnings for the period from April 30,1978 to March 31,1979 proceeded to arbitration pursuant to subdivision 2 of section 675 of the Insurance Law. The arbitrator was presented, *inter alia,*with two reports from the same treating physician: one stated, in effect, that petitioner’s disability arising from the automobile accident terminated on February 20,1978; and the other stated that as of March 2, 1979, petitioner was still disabled from that accident. The arbitrator decided in petitioner’s favor, and rendered an award in the principal sum of $4,629.40. Subsequently, this award was vacated by a master arbitrator as without “rational or plausible basis” and “devoid of support from the record.” Special Term, in turn, vacated the master arbitrator’s determination and reinstated the arbitrator’s award on the ground that the latter “was not irrational, in light of the evidence presented.” We now reverse Special Term, reinstate the determination of the master arbitrator, and vacate that of the arbitrator. Under the facts herein, we cannot pass upon the relative merits of the respective determinations of the two arbitrators. We may only decide if the determination of the master arbitrator (not, as presumed by Special Term, the arbitrator) could withstand a challenge pursuant to one of the grounds enumerated in CPLR 7511 (see *Matter of Bamond v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.,*75 AD2d 812). In fact, subdivision 2 of section 675 of the Insurance Law provides, insofar as relevant, that “The decision of a master arbitrator shall be binding except for the grounds for review set forth in article seventy-five of the civil practice law and rules”. As no issue cognizable under that article was presented to Special Term, it should have upheld the determination of the master arbitrator. Hopkins, J. P., Titone, Margett and Weinstein, JJ. concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 982

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 982 appear at 61 FR 17559, Apr. 22, 1996.

#### § 982.16 Inshell trade acquisitions.

*Inshell trade acquisitions* means the quantity of inshell hazelnuts acquired by the trade from all handlers during a marketing year for distribution in the continental United States and such other distribution areas as may be recommended by the Board and established by the Secretary.

[61 FR 17559, Apr. 22, 1996]
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 32 (Thursday, February 18, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 7265]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3132]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Government in the Sunshine; Meeting Notice

Agency Holding the Meeting: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System.

Federal Register Citation of Previous Announcement: FR 75,5322 dated 
February 2, 2010.

Previously Announced Time and Date of the Meeting: 11:30 a.m., Monday, 
February 8, 2010.

Changes in the Meeting: Due to the closure of the Federal government 
the closed meeting was canceled.

For more information please contact: Michelle Smith, Director, or Dave 
Skidmore, Assistant to the Board, Office of Board Members at 202-452-
2955.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may call 202-452-3206 for a recorded 
announcement of the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at 
http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement. (The Web 
site also includes procedural and other information about the meeting.)

    Dated: February 12, 2010.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2010-3132 Filed 2-16-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
# Subpart 1426.70 [Reserved]

**Parent topic:**PART 1426 - OTHER SOCIOECONOMIC PROGRAMS
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 75-2 Filed 08/30/2007 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 75-2 Filed 08/30/2007 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 75-2 Filed 08/30/2007 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 75-2 Filed 08/30/2007 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 75-2 Filed 08/30/2007 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 75-2 Filed 08/30/2007 Page 6 of 6
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 75-3 Filed 08/30/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00717-ID-SRW Document 75-3 Filed 08/30/2007 Page 2 of 2
1503.000 Scope of part.       This part implements FAR part 3, cites EPA regulations on employee responsibilities and conduct, establishes responsibility for reporting violations and related actions, and provides for authorization of exceptions to policy.    **Parent topic:** PART 1503 - IMPROPER BUSINESS PRACTICES AND PERSONAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
#### Jack Cohen, Respondent, v First National City Bank, Also Known as Citibank, Appellant.

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for breach of contract and breach of warranty, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered October 29, 1979, which (1) denied defendant’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s action for failure to timely serve a complaint, and (2) granted plaintiff’s cross motion to compel defendant to accept the complaint. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, motion granted and cross motion denied. Special Term abused its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff’s justification for the nine-month delay in serving the complaint (after the expiration of the two-month extension agreed to by defendant), that he encountered difficulty in obtaining the information needed to properly draft a complaint, was insufficient in light of the fact that he had enough information at the time the summons was served to assert the general allegations he eventually asserted in his untimely served complaint. In addition, there was no basis in the record for Special Term’s conclusion that defendant was not "unequivocally opposed to settlement negotiations.” Hopkins, J. P., Titone, Mangano and Rabin, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of First Community Financial Corporation, (the Company) for the period ended September
30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Richard R. Leitzel, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



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



2. To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the
operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the Report.



|                        |  |     |  |                                            
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | -------------------------------------------
|Date: November 12, 2004 |  | By: |  | /s/ Richard R. Leitzel                     
|                        |  |     |  | Richard R. Leitzel, Chief Financial Officer



23
#### In the Matter of Leo A. Marino, Appellant, v New York City Police Department, Records Access Officer, Respondent.

Submitted October 15, 2007;

decided November 27, 2007

Reported below, 2007 NY Slip Op 71358(U), 77412(U).

On the Court’s own motion, appeal dismissed, without costs, upon the ground that it does not lie *(see*CPLR 5601). Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that it does not lie *(see*CPLR 5602). Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.