alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 69648.

#### Ace Import Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 64/15896 and 64/19878 (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of glass paperweights similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 64185, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 10.9

 

Dear Mark Fairchild:

 

You are a highly-valued executive, and we consider your continued service and dedication to SourceHOV, and its affiliates (“SourceHOV”) essential to our business.

 

In lieu of a bonus for services you provided to SourceHOV to incentivize you to remain employed from April 1, 2017 through March 31, 2018 (the “Retention Period”), assuming you satisfy the eligibility criteria set forth below, you will earn a bonus in the amount of $200,000, less all applicable withholdings and deductions (the “Bonus”). The Bonus will be paid in the form of an advance on or before July 31, 2017.

 

You earn this Bonus if all of the following eligibility criteria are satisfied, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law:

 

a)                                     You are actively employed by SourceHOV on the last day of the Retention Period;

 

b)                                     You have not given notice of your intent to resign or before the last day of the Retention Period; and

 

c)                                      SourceHOV has not given you notice of its intent to terminate your employment for Cause on or before the last day of the Retention Period.

 

By signing below, you agree that if your employment with SourceHOV ends before the close of the Retention Period and/or if you fail to satisfy all of the other eligibility criteria set forth above,  SourceHOV may deduct the entire amount of the unearned, advanced Bonus from your final paycheck, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law. Additionally, to the extent such deduction is not permitted by applicable law and/or it is not possible to deduct the entire amount of the unearned, advanced Bonus in full from your final paycheck, you agree to re-pay to SourceHOV the remainder of the unearned, advanced Bonus within fifteen (15) business days after the termination of your employment, to the extent permitted by applicable law. If your employment is terminated (i) due to your death or disability, (ii) by you for Good Reason or (iii) for any reason by SourceHOV other than for Cause prior to the end of the Retention Period, you shall not be required to repay any amount of the unearned, advanced Bonus.

 

This letter agreement is intended to comply with, or be exempt from, Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (“Section 409A”) and shall be construed and administered in accordance with Section 409A.

 

This letter agreement encompasses the entire agreement of the parties relating to the Bonus, and supersedes all previous understandings and agreements between the parties with respect to the Retention Period. This letter agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties and their successors and assigns. This letter agreement, for all purposes, shall be construed in accordance with the laws of Delaware without regard to conflicts-of-law principles that would result in the application of the laws of another jurisdiction.

 

	
Agreed and accepted
    	
Compensation Committee
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
/s/ Mark Fairchild
    	
 
    	
/s/ James G. Reynolds
    
	
Mark Fairchild
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<MULTIPLIER>                            1,000

<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                      MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                710,068
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>              8,870,819
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                            0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>           498,130
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        0
<LOANS>                           118,954,614
<ALLOWANCE>                           226,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    136,452,172
<DEPOSITS>                         89,683,029
<SHORT-TERM>                       28,241,258
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                 1,642,643
<LONG-TERM>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                               12,251
<OTHER-SE>                         16,872,991
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>    136,452,172
<INTEREST-LOAN>                     6,873,000
<INTEREST-INVEST>                     119,866
<INTEREST-OTHER>                      361,229
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                    7,354,175
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                  3,258,506
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  4,361,104
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>               2,993,071
<LOAN-LOSSES>                               0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                          0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                     2,194,039
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       921,968
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>            557,918
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                          557,918
<EPS-BASIC>                              0.44
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0.43
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                           7.71
<LOANS-NON>                           896,697
<LOANS-PAST>                          175,646
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                      213,000
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                             0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                      226,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                               0
<RECOVERIES>                                0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                     226,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                  203,600
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                         0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                22,400


</TABLE>
Case No. 14,206.

#### TRUMP et al. v. The THOMAS.

[Bee, 86.] 1

District Court, D. South Carolina.

Sept. 3, 1796.

Seamen — Wages—Lien on Vessel — Laches.

The vessel «vas sold under sentence of the court of admiralty at Providence at the suit of others of the crew. These libellants had notice of the proceedings, but did not apply for their wages. Their lien on the vessel is at an end.

[Cited in The Utility, Case No. 16,806; Packard v. The Louisa, Id. 10,652; Herbert v. The Amanda F. Myrick, Id. 6.395; Wall v. The Royal Saxon. Id. 17,093; Pierce v. The Alberto, Id. 11,142.]

In admiralty.

BEE, District Judge.

This is a suit for seamen’s wages, against a vessel that has been condemned in a foreign court of admiralty, (on a like suit brought by others of the crew) sold at public sale under that decree, and purchased by a third person for a valuable consideration. These facts are stated and charged in the libel. It is contended on the part of the libellants that they have a lien on the vessel notwithstanding this decree and sale. On the other side it is insisted that by the maritime law, and usage of courts of admiralty, the lien of these men on the vessel is totally at an end.

I have considered this case with great attention, and find that the proceedings of the admiralty court at Providence were in the usual mode. The libellants were on the spot, and might, on the return of the monition have been made parties to the suit. Nay, even after the decree, and previously to the sale, I think the court, upon hearing their case stated, would have let in their demand. ButPit does not appear that they took a single step in the business, though there is proof before the court that they might have done so. They are therefore, strictly within the rule of law, “Vigilantibus non dormienti-bus subveniunt leges.” The sentence of a court of admiralty is notice to all the world. The court at Providence had competent jurisdiction; this sale was made openly and without any pretence of collusion; and I am of opinion, that the present claim against the vessel cannot be sustained. If it could, no purchaser would be safe. I dismiss the libel, but without costs.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6595

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. BARTON JOSEPH ADAMS , Defendant

- Appellant ,

a nd JOSEPHINE ARTILLAGA ADAMS; B.A. , Claimants

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia , at Martinsburg

. John Preston Bailey , District Judge. ( 3:08

- cr
- 00077

- JPB

- RWT

- 1 ; 3:15

- cv
- 00111

- JPB

- RWT )

Submitted : October 30, 2018 Decided: November 5, 2018

Before MOTZ , DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Barton Joseph Adams , Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Barton J oseph Adams seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating th at reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v.
Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Adams has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability , deny Adams’ motion to appoint counsel, 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
No. 69826.

protest 61/5991 (New York).

#### Rohner Gehrig & Co., Inc., and The Graber Manufacturing Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of pole ends similar in all material respects to those the subject of *J. C. DeJong & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(52 CCPA 26, C.A.D. 852), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
H. Res. 400

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

May 22, 2007.

Whereas on the evening of Friday, May 4, 2007, a tornado 

struck the community of Greensburg, Kansas; 

Whereas this tornado was classified as an EF–5, the strongest possible type, with winds estimated at 205 miles per 

hour; 

Whereas 9 lives were lost; 

Whereas approximately 95 percent of Greensburg was destroyed, causing over 1,500 residents to be displaced 

from their homes; and 

Whereas the strength, courage, and determination of the citizens of Greensburg, Kansas, have been evident following 

the tornado: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the House of Representatives—

(1) expresses its deepest sympathies to the citizens 

of Greensburg, Kansas, over the devastation caused by 

the powerful tornado that struck the community on May 

4, 2007; and 
2

•HRES 400 EH 

(2) expresses its support as the citizens of Greensburg continue their efforts to rebuild their community 

and their lives. 

Attest:

Clerk.
No. 64499.

#### Balto. Pure Rye Dist. Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 877965-G, etc. (Baltimore).

Opinion by

Bichardson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise and issues are similar in all material respects to those involved in *United States*v. *R. C. Williams & Co., Inc.*(40 C.C.P.A. 130, C.A.D. 508), and *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C.D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
DESIG N ATIO N OF AGENT FOR SERVIC E O F NOTICE, PROCESS , ORD E RS D EC ISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS ATTENTION DOCKET SECTION, C-55

_____ __**T!..-'r~a~n~sA~s!.!:iaC-'A~ir..!.w!.ta!..tv..:o?.s~C~o~r-l'p~o:!.!ra!!.!t!.!io~n!...._** ______________ , having it s principal (Name of Company , please print) Office at**----'N~o'""""'.** 9"-'''-'S"-'e"'c"-
. .!.1 ,_.**T~id""in"'g"-"'B.!.Iv'-'d!..>.,_,_N~e~h~uc...!D~is!.t....!T~a!lJip~e<..!.i'-. T~ai..!.w!.ta~n'-'IC-'lc:J4~9** **4,_ ,** **~R~.O~-~C"'-.---------­** (address) Hereby designates , pursuant to section 46103 of Ti tle 49 of the U
. S. Code (formerly section 1005(b) ofthe Federal Av i ation Act of 1958 , as amended) the person named below as its Agent upon whom service of all no t ices proc esses and all orders, decision, and requirements of the Department of Transportation may be made for and on behalf of said carr ier , hereby canceling all previous designations of agents made by it to the DOT
. NameofAgent
__________**~Jo~s~h~R~o~m!.!:a~n~o.!.w~------------ --------------**  Address Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. 2300 N Street, NW, Washingt o n, DC 20037 The Agent so designated has written his name and also his initials in the following space :

# Name**~,L:__j ~lk:::=::::::::_**  _______ __ (lnitials).
___ 

# OJL
________ _ IN WITNESS WHEREOF ,**__!T.!.ra!!!n~s:!:A~s.!.£ia~A~i!!..rw!:!..!!.ayt,;s!....!C:eo~rp.!L!Lor!..!!a!!!ti~on!..!.....** _________________ has caused t hes e (Name of Company) p r esents to be signed in it s name by
_____**__!Y~e~e~C,:!!h!.!do:!!.on!..!Jg~C:!..!h!£oo>!..!i** ______ , Pre s i dent (Please Print) of said company , and t o be attested under its corporate seal by**-----"R"'-o!£be"'-rt-'-"-'H~ .**  ""L"'ou"'------ Chief Legal Officer (Secretary, or other Title) On this , 

# I
..... day of 

# &just . 20 11- TransA sia Airways Corporation (Name of C ompany )

# By:_**______.:____, _**  (Yee Choo n g Choo i ..,Pr'ls j dent ) ATTEST:

( Robert H. Lou, Chief Legal Officer) OST F 1010.5 (1-98) 

# •
From: coftp@northarkansas.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:16:04 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Samuel Balsano

Gamaliel, AR 72537
No. 58207.

protest 223732-K (New York).

#### Gehrig, Hoban & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

*297Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

The motion to dismiss was granted.
No. 69671.

#### Irving Raincoat Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 63/5720, etc. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Nichols, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of articles of synthetic rubber similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *Weather-Rite Sportswear Co., Inc.*(52 CCPA 7, C.A.D. 848), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Exhibit 32.02

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of State Auto Financial Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for
the period ending March 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Steven E. English, 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) The information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



/s/    Steven E. EnglishSteven E. EnglishChief Financial OfficerMay 5, 2010


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to State Auto Financial Corporation and will
be retained by State Auto Financial Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
From: mcsterg@comcast.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:47:47 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

PS. I'm certain that it is STRICTLY COINCIDENCE that your definition of "religious employer" creates no

problem for Islamic "charities", which only provide services for Muslims, but does create problems for

Christian charities, who make no distinction as to who receives their services.

Sincerely,

Michael Stergios

Kent, WA 98032
No. 63310.

protests 298928-K and 268690-K.

#### Global Gifts & Gadgets, Inc., and Alltransport, Inc. *v.*United States,

Plaintiffs’ application for rehearing granted.
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

March 23, 2020

No. 04

- 20

- 00018

- CV

DICEX INTERNATIONAL, INC.

,

Appellant

v.

AMIGO STAFFING, INC.

,

Appellee

From the 111th Judicial District Court, W ebb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CVT001668

- D2 Honorable Monica Z. Notzon, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The Appellant ’ s Second Motion for Extension of Time to F i le Brief is here by GRANTED. T h e appel lant ’ s brief is due on or before April 24, 2020.

_________________________________ Irene Rio s , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 23rd day of March, 2020

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz , Clerk of Court
No. 68936.

#### Canton Son, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 64/54, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, O.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of ballet dancing figures on jewelry boxes similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 66652, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                  EXHIBIT 99.1


                         INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S REPORT

Board of Directors
Sistersville Bancorp, Inc.

We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Sistersville
Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiary as of December 31, 2000, and the related
consolidated statement of cash flows for the nine month period ended, and the
consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income for the nine- and
three-month periods then ended. These financial statements are the
responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial
information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial
data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accounting
matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance
with generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of which is the
expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole.
Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the accompanying financial statements for them to be in conformity
with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2000, and the related
consolidated statements of income, comprehensive income, changes in stockholders
equity, and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein); and in
our report dated April 14, 2000, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those
consolidated financial statements.

/s/ S. R. SNODGRASS, A.C.

Wheeling, West Virginia
February 2, 2001


S. R. Snodgrass, A.C.
980 National Road, Wheeling, WV 26003-6400