alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 DEC-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-29-1998
<CASH>                                           9,802
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,271
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (756)
<INVENTORY>                                     15,618
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                42,150
<PP&E>                                          61,846
<DEPRECIATION>                                  29,808
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  79,558
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           49,007
<BONDS>                                         17,879
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        22,478
<OTHER-SE>                                     (15,938)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    79,558
<SALES>                                         98,924
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               101,255
<CGS>                                           85,466
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   85,466
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    42
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 201
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    463
<INCOME-TAX>                                       186
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                277
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       277
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.07



</TABLE>
No. 58842.

protests 236793-K and 236794-K (Galveston).

#### Air Express International Agency, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

A review of the official papers showing that the protests were untimely, same were dismissed.
Document

Exhibit 10.15


SECOND AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE SEVERANCE AGREEMENT


This Second Amendment to the Amended and Restated Executive Severance Agreement (“Agreement”), dated March 1, 2006 by and between Robert A. Fehlman (“Executive”) and Simmons First National Corporation (“Company”), is made and entered to be effective on March 27, 2009, WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the Company is anticipating participation in the Troubled Asset Relief Program - Capital Purchase Program (“CPP”);
WHEREAS, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (collectively the “Acts”) imposes certain restrictions on payments to senior executive officers upon their departure from an entity participating in the CPP (“Termination Payment Limitations”);
WHEREAS, individuals to whom the Termination Payment Limitations may apply may vary from time to time based upon the compensation of the individual and other factors,
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto desire to amend the Agreement to comply with the terms and conditions of Acts and the regulations and guidelines issued thereunder as set forth below.
1.    Addition of New Section 2.9. The Agreement is hereby amended by adding at the end of Article 2, LIMITATION UNDER CPP, a new Section 2.9·
2.9 Limitation under CPP. Notwithstanding any other provisions in this Agreement, if, and so long as, the Company is a participant in the Troubled Assets Relief Program - Capital Purchase Program (“CPP”), no payments or other benefits hereunder shall accrue or become payable to the Executive if such payment or other benefit is prohibited under the CPP or any laws regulations or guidelines applicable to participants in the CPP. Further, in the event any such payment or other benefit, while not prohibited, shall be restricted or limited under the CPP or any laws regulations or guidelines applicable to participants in the CPP, then all such payments or other benefits hereunder shall be modified to provide for the payment or other benefit to be made only as restricted or limited by the CPP or any laws regulations or guidelines applicable to participants in the CPP.
2.    Continuation. The Agreement is hereby modified to reflect the terms of this Amendment, and shall continue in full force and effect, as so amended All other provisions of the Agreement, not specifically modified herein, shall remain in full force and effect.










IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this instrument to be effective on the date provided above.


						
	SIMMONS FIRST NATIONAL CORPORATION
		
	By:	/s/ John L. Rush
		Secretary
		
	By:	/s/ Robert A. Fehlman
		Robert A. Fehlman


-2-
Before the Third Division,

June 30, 1945

No. 50327.

#### Protests 102171-K, etc., of Ignaz Strauss & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

A list enumerating the specific item numbers in question was admitted in evidence as exhibit 1, and it was agreed between counsel that all other items upon the invoices not included in such list were abandoned. Six exhibits of various sizes were admitted in evidence as illustrative of the articles in *227controversy. Two witnesses testified for the plaintiff to the effect that they had observed the articles used in many homes throughout the country in use as ornaments for decorative purposes. The Government examiner testified that the larger bowls are used about fifty-fifty, for decorative purposes in the United States, and the smaller bowls about 90 percent for table use. However, when questioned concerning his observations as to the use of the articles, his replies seemed to be lather contradictory. It was held there is no doubt that the ginger jars are of an ornamental character. As to the bowls, the evidence clearly established them to be of a decorative nature and although they might be used in Chinese homes for the service of food, the preponderance of use in this country in homes generally would be as ornaments. From the testimony produced and an observation of the samples the court held that the articles are clearly household utensils, and just as clearly such articles are excluded and distinguished from utensils used in connection with the table or the kitchen. *(United States*v. *Butler,*33 C. C. P. A. 22, C. A. D. 310, followed.) The protests were therefore sustained as claimed.
A89A2170.

#### GAITHER v. THE STATE.

(390 SE2d 113)

Pope, Judge.

On January 1, 1988, Danny Floyd and his fiancee, Daniker Cunningham, were driving home after eating dinner at a restaurant. Because Floyd was smoking a cigarette, the window on the driver’s side was rolled down. While the car was stopped at a red light, several men approached the car. One put a gun to Floyd’s head and de*214manded money. Simultaneously, the defendant leaned into the car and turned the car off and attempted to remove the keys from the ignition. The defendant also took Floyd’s wallet and attempted to get his fiancee’s purse. However, Floyd was able to start the car and escape. Almost immediately, Floyd found a policeman and the two returned to the area where the robbery occurred. Floyd identified the defendant as did his fiancee shortly after the defendant’s arrest.

Decided January 10, 1990.

*A. Nevell Owens,*for appellant.

*Lewis R. Slaton, District Attorney, Joseph J. Drolet, Katherine E. Beaver, Assistant District Attorneys,*for appellee.

1. The defendant argues that his character was placed improperly in issue in violation of the holding in *Jones v. State,*257 Ga. 753 (363 SE2d 529) (1988). While on the stand, the defendant testified, “I wouldn’t do nothing like that. I don’t even have it in my heart to rob nobody.” Outside the presence of the jury, in a hearing on the State’s request to use prior convictions to impeach the defendant’s testimony, the defendant further stated, “I ain’t never did nothing wrong in my life. I ain’t never broke a crime.” This was in response to a question from the defendant’s own attorney. “Where the defendant testifies in his own behalf and falsely denies past criminal conduct (or past misdeeds,) the State may introduce evidence reflecting negatively on the defendant’s character only insofar as that evidence proves the falsity of specific testimony of the defendant. ... In this circumstance the defendant has not placed his character in issue within the meaning of OCGA § 24-9-20 (b). Rather, we recognize this as a situation where the state is permitted to rebut statements of a defendant who testifies at trial by disproving the facts testified to.” (Citations, punctuation and emphasis omitted.) *Jones v. State,*257 Ga. at 759. Use of the defendant’s prior convictions for criminal trespass and theft by receiving was proper to rebut his protestations that he never had done anything like this before. There was no error.

2. The evidence adduced at trial was sufficient to enable a rational trier of fact to find that the defendant was guilty of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt. *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Banke, P. J., and Sognier, J., concur.*
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

VINITA KENNEDY,

Appellant,

v.

THOMAS KENNEDY,

Appellee.

No. 4D16-3701

[December 14, 2017]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Merrilee Ehrlich, Judge; L.T. Case No. FMCE10-01488 

(40)(97).

Steven M. Ebner and Stephen T. Maher of Shutts & Bowen LLP, Miami,

and Roberta G. Stanley and John N. Lambros of Brinkley Morgan of Fort 

Lauderdale, for appellant.

Cynthia L. Greene of Greene Smith, P.A., Coral Gables, and Rae E. 

Chorowski and Meghan Clary of Chorowski & Clary, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, 

for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, CONNER and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Case No. .10,353.

#### NORTON v. SHELBY CO.

[Cited in Kelly v. Milan. 21 Fed. 802. Nowhere reported: opinion not now accessible. The decree of the circuit court was affirmed by the supreme court in 11S U. S. 423. 0 Sun. Ci. 1121.]
No. 61724.

#### International Expediters, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 304913-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

The protests were dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Before the Second Division,

June 27, 1945

No. 50302.

#### Protests 80472-K, etc., of Nippon Dry Goods Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

An examination of certain samples admitted in evidence showed that there is a plainly marked line of demarcation between the soles and the uppers. Based upon an examination of the samples and the record, the *218merchandise covered by protest 80472-K, described as item 23/4 “Embroidered Rayon Crocheted Baby Shoes,” and the merchandise covered by protests 80569-K and 81152-K, described as item 23/76 “Hand Knitted Woolen Baby Shoes.” was held properly dutiable at 35 percent under paragraph 1530 as claimed. Protests 83607-K, 83872-K, and 83-874-K, having been formally abandoned, were dismissed.
No. 50858.

#### Protests 111858-K, etc., of A. N. Deringer, Inc. (St. Albans).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(14 Cust. Ct. 94, C. D. 919). In accordance therewith the claim for free entry was sustained.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)

I VAN RAY BEGA Y

, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 19

- 3508 ( TSC )

)

FEDERAL BUREAU OF

INVESTIGATION

, )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On November 18, 2019, P laintiff Ivan Begay brought this civil action under the Freedom

of Information Act (“FOIA”), see 5 U.S.C. § 552, to obtain records maintained by Defendant the

Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”).

According to Defendant’s Status Report (ECF No. 17), it identified one document

responsive to plaintiff’s FOIA request and release d the document to P laintiff after redact ing

certain information under FOIA Exemptions 6, 7(C) and 7(D). On September 14, 2020, the

c ourt issued a Minute Order directing P laintiff to file a status report by November 2, 2020,

indicating whether he challenge s the FBI ’s response to his FOIA request , and if so, to identify

the basis for his challenge . The court would then set a schedule for dispositive motions. If

Plaintiff did not challenge Defendant’s response, he was to file a notice of voluntary dismissal by

November 2, 2020. The Minute Order advised P laintiff that his failure file a timely status report

or notice may result in the dismissal of this action without further notice failure to prosecute. To

date, P laintiff has not filed a status report or n otice.Accordingly, the c ourt will dismiss the complaint and this civil action without prejudice

for failure to prosecute. An Order is issued separately.

D ATE : November 27, 2020 /s/

T ANYA S. CHUTKAN

United States District Judge
Before the Third Division,

April 6, 1959

No. 62958.

#### J. J. Hayes Company for Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. *v.*United States,

protest 58/10593 (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5(b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Document

EXHIBIT 10.27


Amendment No. 2


Wyeth 2005 (409A) Deferred Compensation Plan


(effective January 1, 2005)


* * *


(New material underlined; deletions crossed out)


1.Section 7.1(a) shall be amended to read as follows: 


7.1     Base Salary and Bonus Compensation Deferrals. 


(a) Short-Term Payouts. Each Short-Term Payout shall be a lump-sum payment equal to the deferred amount, plus or minus Investment Earnings/Losses debited or credited thereto in the manner provided in Section 6, determined at the time the Short-Term Payout becomes payable. Each Short-Term Payout elected shall be payable on the Short-Term Payout Date designated by the Participant on the Election Form with respect thereto. Short-Term Payouts shall be made as soon as practicable after the applicable Short-Term Payout Date elected by the Participant on the applicable Election Form; provided, however, that in no event shall such payment be made later than 30 days after the relevant elected date. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that a scheduled Short-Term Payout, if paid, would (or in the judgment of the Committee, would be reasonably likely to) result in the loss of deductibility for federal income tax purposes of any compensation paid by the Company due to the limitations of Section 162(m) of the Code in any Plan Year, then the scheduled Short-Term Payout shall be delayed to the earlier of (i) the date the Committee reasonably determines that the deduction of payment of the Short-Term Payout would not be limited or eliminated by application of Section 162(m) of the Code or (ii) the calendar year in which the Participant Separates from Service.


2.Nothing in this amendment shall be deemed to modify or affect any (i) compensation that is grandfathered, or any grandfathered amounts, for purposes of Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended (the “Code”), or (ii) grandfathered benefits or amounts under Section 409A of the Code.


3.To the extent required by the preamble to the 2019 Proposed Regulations under Section 162(m) of the Code (REG-122180-18, 84 Fed. Reg. 70356, 70369 (Dec. 20, 2019)), the Company shall cause the payment of previously deferred amounts that would have been required to be paid prior to December 31, 2020 to be made no later than December 31, 2020.


4.Any one or more of the officers of the Company be, and hereby is, authorized, empowered and directed to take all such further action, to execute and deliver all such further agreements, instruments, deeds of trust, and other documents, in the name and on behalf of the Company, including, without limitation, powers of attorney on behalf of the Company, and adoption of plan documents reflecting the foregoing and other general matters to ensure the Plan’s compliance with law, which shall in their judgment be necessary, proper or advisable.
No. 52160.

protest 131122-K (New York).

#### B. M. Reeves Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

From an examination of the papers the court was unable to find any evidence sufficient to overcome the action of the collector, which was presumptively correct. The protest was therefore overruled.
Exhibit 10.72
 SUMMARY SCHEDULE OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS COMPENSATION
 Annual Retainers
 
    
    Non-Employee Executive Chairman: Approximately $400,000 in restricted stock units
(through 12/31/08)
    
    Non-Employee Directors other than the Executive Chairman: $45,000
    
    Audit Committee Members: $10,000
    
    Nominating & Governance Committee Members: $5,000
    
    Compensation Committee Members: $5,000
    
    Risk and Finance Oversight Committee Members: $5,000
    
    Special Committee Chairman approximately: $25,000
 Fees for Meeting Attendance
 
    
    Board Meetings: $2,000 per meeting
    
    Committee Meetings: $2,000 per meeting
  
    
    Cash
    
    Common Stock
    Equity Compensation
 
    
    Annual grant of 6,000 shares of restricted stock with voting and dividend rights.
 The shares vest and the restrictions are removed on the one-year anniversary of the grant
date.
    
    Initial grant of 5,000 shares of restricted stock which vests and the restrictions are
removed on the vesting date of the immediately preceding annual grant.
# XML Schema 5.0.1 Download Instructions

To download the current version of the XML Schema version 5.0.1, go to the Bureau of the Fiscal Service website, using this link:  https://www.fiscal.treasury.gov/data/

You will then see this page: 

· Click the link for "COLLECTION REPORT V 5.0.1" on the left side of the screen.  This will open up a new page with more options. 

On the lower part of the page, 

· Expand the link titled "PUBLISHED RELEASES" to display the current release. 

· Click the link for "Current 5.0.1 Release", which will then make a zip file containing the current XML 5.0.1 release available. 

You will then be prompted to **open or save the FiscalService_Schema_v5.0.1.zip** file. 

Replace all local files in your system for 5.0.1 with the files contained in the newly downloaded zip.

# image1.png

# image2.png

# image3.png
Before the First Division,

MARCH 17, 1955

No. 58835.

protest 225467-K (New York).

#### Teigh, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of glass bead Christmas tree ornaments similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Walco Bead Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(29 Cust. Ct. 62, C. D. 1445), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Skip to Main Content Contact Us|About Us|Sign In
     Top Links
 Project Search Navigation
 Home
 Funding
 Research
 Publications
 Newsletters
HomeProjects Search
        Breadcrumb
    Footer
 The Basics
			Fire Science Info
			Partners
			What is FireScience.gov?HomeContact UsAbout Us
			Fire Science Exchange NetworkFundingResearchPublicationsNewsletters
			Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | FOIA | Accessibility
            The Joint Fire Science Program funds scientific research on wildland fires and 
                distributes results to help policymakers, fire managers and practitioners make sound 
                decisions. More...
          Release 1.0
#### Madden’s Estate.

*Appeals*— *Assignments of error*— *Noncompliance with*rules— *Quashing appeal.*

An appeal from a final decree of the orphans’ court will be dismissed, where the error assigned is the dismissal of exceptions, and such exceptions are not contained in the assignments of error, or otherwise incorporated in accordance with the rules.

*198Argued April 28, 1924.

Appeals, Nos. 29 and 30, April T., 1924, by exceptants, from decree of O. C. Allegheny Co., Feb. T., 1922, No. 87, dismissing exceptions to adjudication in the estate of Thomas Madden, deceased.

Before Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.

Appeals dismissed.

Exceptions to adjudication. Before Trimble, J.

■The opinion of the Superior Court states the case.

The court dismissed the exceptions. Exceptants appealed.

*Error assigned*was in dismissing exceptions.

O. *H. Rosenbaum,,*for appellant.

*E. L. Eegner,*for appellee.

May 5, 1924:

Per Curiam,

The single assignment of error is said to be to the final decree dismissing appellant’s exceptions and confirming the account. The exceptions in question are not printed in the assignment. At one place in the record, we find exceptions which were filed below, — the first being as follows: “1. The auditing judge erred in dismissing the exceptions filed by Mary Madden, and said exceptions are hereby renewed” — Our inquiry would then seem to become: what were the exceptions filed, so referred to as having been dismissed, and now renewed? We cannot pursue such inquiries and we state so much of the matter only to indicate that there is a real necessity to comply with the rules of this court governing the preparation of briefs, especially in a matter however so vital as the assignments of error. We have examined the record in the light of appellant’s argument, and find no error. Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT 99





              JUNIATA VALLEY FINANCIAL CORP. ANNOUNCES 2001 RESULTS


Mifflintown, PA - Francis J. Evanitsky, President & CEO of the Juniata Valley
Bank recently announced the operating results for 2001. Earnings for the year
were reported at $4,642,000 compared to $4,387,000 for the year 2000. This
represents an increase of 5.8%. On an earnings per share basis, the year 2001
showed $1.96 per share in earnings versus $1.81 per share in the year 2000, an
8.3% increase.

Deposits increased by $18,248,000 to $305,468,000 compared to $287,220,000 in
the year 2000, while total loans outstanding have increased by $8,179,000 to
$227,998,000 compared to $219,819,000 in the year 2000.

Fueled by the volatile stock market and the uncertainty of the economy, total
assets of the bank increased by $21,843,000 to a level of $356,757,000.

As a result of the aforementioned loan and deposit growth and the increase in
earnings, The Juniata Valley Bank recorded a ROA (return on assets) of 1.33% for
2001 versus 1.31% for 2000.

Evanitsky commented "We are very pleased with the results for 2001. However, it
was an extremely challenging year and initially the year 2002 appears to be just
as challenging."

The Juniata Valley Bank was chartered in 1867 and has 12 offices serving
Juniata, Mifflin, Perry and Huntingdon counties. More information regarding the
Juniata Valley Bank can be found online at WWW.JVBONLINE.COM.


<PAGE>