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


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                            JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                    5
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                             0
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          5
<PP&E>                                    0
<DEPRECIATION>                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            5
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     40,560
<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                                  5,513
<OTHER-SE>                               (46,068)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              5
<SALES>                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          0
<CGS>                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          10,640
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (10,640)
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (10,640)
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                              (10,640)
<EPS-BASIC>                               (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0



</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

STATE FARM MUTUAL

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE CO., et al. 

v.

 

AMERICAN REHAB AND 

PHYSICAL THERAPY, INC., et al.

CIVIL ACTION 

NO. 03-5595

 

ORDER

AND NOW, this 25th day of January, 2013, the Court held the latest in a series of hearings 

concerning defendant Privitera’s indebtedness to plaintiff on January 24, 2013. The history of 

this case will not be set forth as it appears in other memoranda and orders. Pending before the 

Court is defendant Privitera’s motion to modify the Court’s prior Order requiring monthly 

payments to plaintiff. Discovery was ordered by the Court and has, in part, been completed. 

Plaintiff was seeking additional discovery and the hearing consisted of certain Orders stated on the 

record concerning completion of discovery, and testimony by Mr. Privitera. At the conclusion, 

the Court ruled that discovery and communications between counsel should continue. It appears 

that the Internal Revenue Service has lodged a lien and possibly a judgment against defendant as to 

which he is making partial payments. Counsel will complete the additional discovery promptly 

and defendant will file a response to defendant’s motion to modify by March 30, 2013. 

Defendant may reply April 7, 2013. In the meantime, the Court ORDERED:

1. Defendant must provide documentary evidence of all receipts of cash or any asset, 

from whatever source, directly or indirectly, to his counsel who should, in turn, provide the 

documentation to plaintiff.

2. Defendant must report any additional clients he receives and what the terms of the 

Case 2:03-cv-05595-MMB Document 232 Filed 01/25/13 Page 1 of 2
engagement are, with appropriate supporting documentation.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Michael M. Baylson

 

Michael M. Baylson, U.S.D.J.

O:\CIVIL 90-06 & MDL\03-5595, STATE FARM V. AMERICAN REHAB\03CV5595.MOT.MODIFY.DOCX

Case 2:03-cv-05595-MMB Document 232 Filed 01/25/13 Page 2 of 2
Case 2:03-cv-05595-MMB Document 150 Filed 06/22/09 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:03-cv-05595-MMB Document 150 Filed 06/22/09 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:03-cv-05595-MMB Document 150 Filed 06/22/09 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:03-cv-05595-MMB Document 150 Filed 06/22/09 Page 4 of 4
UN PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18

- 1082

SIERRA CLUB; VIRGINIA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE

,

Petitioners

,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, an agency of the U.S. Department of the Interior; RYAN ZINKE,

in his official capacity Secretary of the Department of the Interior;

MICHAEL T. REYNOLDS, in his official capacity as Deputy Director, Operations, Exercising the Authority of Director; STAN AUSTIN, in his official capacity as Southea st Regional Director, Responsible Official

,

Respondents,

ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE, LLC,

Intervenor

.

No. 18

- 1083

DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE; SIERRA CLUB; VIRGINIA WILDERNESS COMMITTEE,

Petitioners

,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, an agency of the U.S. Department of the Interior; RYAN ZINKE, in his official capacity Secretary of the Department of the Interior; GREG SHEEHAN, in2 his official capacity as Principal Dep uty Director; CINDY SCHULZ, in her official capacity as Field Supervisor, Virginia Ecological Services, Responsible Official,

Respondents,

ATLANTIC COAST PIPELINE, LLC,

Intervenor.

On Petition for Review from the United States Department of the Interior . ( 5

- 140

- 1945)

Argued : May 10, 2018 Decided: May 15, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, WYNN and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

ARGUED: Austin Donald Gerken, Jr., SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER, Asheville, North Carolina, for Petitioners. Avi Kupfer, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. Brooks Meredith Smith, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP, Richmond, Virginia, for Intervenor. ON BRIEF: Amelia Burnette, J. Patrick Hunter, Asheville, North Carolina, Gregory Bupper t, SOUTHERN ENVIRONMENTAL LAW CENTER, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Petitioners. Eric Grant, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Andrew Mergen, J. David Gunter II, Environment and Natural Resources Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington , D.C.; Andrew Tittler, S. Amanda Bossie, Office of the Solicitor, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. Andrea W. Wortzel, TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP, Richmond, Virginia,

for Intervenor.

ORDER3 PER CURIAM:

Petitioners seek review of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Incidental Take

Statement, which authorized the Atlantic Coast Pipeline project to take certain threatened

or endangered species. As to five of the affected species, Petitioners argue that the

agency failed to set clear limits on take as required by the Endangered Species Act.

Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 717r(d)(1) , we conclude, for

reasons to be more fully explained in a forthcoming opinion, that the limits set by the

agency are so indeterminate that they undermine the Incidental Take Statement’s

enforcement and monitoring function under the Endangered Species Act. Accordingly,

we VACATE the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Incidental Take Statement. See 5 U.S.C.

§ 706(2). We reserve judgment on the parties’ remaining disputes until our forthcoming

opinion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DEEE Process Selection Criteria for Cost Savings

The process selection criteria should be selected and sequenced to align with agency goals and considered howith the greatest opportunity for efficiency gains. Baseline cost and FTE data can also be gathered to quantify 

Process Selection Criteria* Rationale1. Transaction volume cost driver

Value results from economies of scale - accurately and quickly processing higManual work (and FTE needs) can be more easily reduced in standardized, hmore analytical or strategic processes

2. High transaction volume Greater volume gives more opportunities to unlock economies of scale3. High FTEs per transaction Relatively high FTEs in transactional processes may be an indicator of more m4. No or low existing automation Existing automation may indicate “low hanging fruit” for efficiency is already 5. Known internal control or audit issues Resolving known issues demonstrates immediate, measurable success6. Transaction backlog Backlogs indicate significant capacity challenges, presenting opportunities fo7. High error rate A greater number of transactions in suspense indicate greater potential savi

automation that may reduce human error, eliminating rework

8. Multiple systems Multiple systems may indicate lack of integration, and opportunities to add f9. Low customer satisfaction User and customer experience are not meeting business expectations

GOAL: Identify Processes that are More Manual Require More FTEs Potentially inefficient 

*Criteria are most effective when analyzed in combination and sequenced to reflect agency priorities such as cost savings, enhanced controls, and improved customer experience (i.e., the priority of criteria will differ based on desired outcome)
Sample Selection Criteria Data Analysis

The example below shows how 3 End–to-End processes could be analyzed and sequenced based on data align

processes. Example data for top 4 criteria is shown below to illustrate the analysis method.

2. Second Sort:Data is then sorted an emphasis on cldeviations from a top 4 sub-processfollowed by a large to the next criteria 3. Analysis and SeqAgencies should losequencing. For exhigh transaction vhighest, B2C is ultFTEs/transaction f1. First Sort:Data is organized tdriver (to prioritize 

End-to-End Service Cost Driver Trans. Volume FTEs / Trans. Existing Automation?

Procure to Pay Sub-Process A Transactional 110,000 2.1 NoBill to Collect Sub-Process D Transactional 102,000 6.5 NoBill to Collect Sub-Process B Transactional 101,000 8.2 NoProcure to Pay Sub-Process B Transactional 99,000 3.2 YesBill to Collect Sub-Process C Transactional 74,000 4.2 NoRequest to Procure Sub-Process A Transactional 63,000 2.7 YesBill to Collect Sub-Process A Analytical 28,500 1.7 NoRequest to Procure Sub-Process B Analytical 15,000 5.2 YesProcure to Pay Sub-Process C Analytical 1,500 0.5 No

Sample Process Data

Process Analysis 

Sequence 1. Bill to Collect 2. Procure to Pay 3. Request to Procure
Document

Exhibit 10.208

SECOND AMENDMENT TO
SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN FOR CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE
ERIE INSURANCE GROUP RETIREMENT PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES
(Amended and Restated as of January 1, 2009)
WHEREAS, Erie Indemnity Company (the “Company”) maintains the Supplemental Retirement Plan for Certain Members of the Erie Insurance Group Retirement Plan for Employees (the “Plan”); and
WHEREAS, Section 7 of the Plan provides that the Company may amend the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan to remove Section 5.4(a) of the Plan which allows the Company to delay a payment of nonqualified deferred compensation to the extent that the Company reasonably anticipates that the payment would not be deductible under Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 due to changes in how that provision is applied; and 
WHEREAS, the Company’s Board of Directors approved the aforementioned amendment by resolution on December 8, 2020.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Company hereby amends in its entirety Section 5.4(a) of the Plan as follows, effective as of December 31, 2020:
a)    [Intentionally Omitted]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Second Amendment to be executed this 24th day of December, 2020.
						
		ERIE INDEMNITY COMPANY
		
	ATTEST:	
		
	/s/ Brian W. Bolash
	By:  /s/ Timothy NeCastro

		
		Title:  President and CEO
Before the Third Division,

July 12, 1950

No. 54547.

#### James Bute Company *v.*United States,

petition 6712-R (Galveston).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It appeared that out of the 17 shipments, 14 were-entered at 46 centavos (Mexican currency) per meter, and 3 at 55 centavos per-meter; that they were all appraised at 55 centavos per meter; that on reappraisement 7 were appraised at 46 centavos, 2 at 46.6 centavos, and the balance at 46.7’ centavos. In seven instances the entered value was correct and in three instances it was too high. The petition covers the remaining seven instances where the reappraised value exceeded the entered value. At the trial petitioner’s witness testified that prior to making entry he discussed the procedure with customs-officials and disclosed the price he was paying for the merchandise; that he caused the entries to be made by a customs broker and gave the broker all the information-as to value which he had; and that there was no intent to defraud the revenue. On the record presented it was held that the petitioner acted without intention to-defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the appraiser as to the value of the merchandise. The-petition was therefore granted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-27-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           5,325
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   26,909
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,001
<INVENTORY>                                      9,397
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                44,654
<PP&E>                                          76,398
<DEPRECIATION>                                  21,047
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 108,304
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           60,786
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            89
<OTHER-SE>                                      47,360
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   108,304
<SALES>                                        170,097
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               170,097
<CGS>                                          152,976
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  152,976
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                20,659
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,972
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,602)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,849)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,753)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,753)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.54)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LITHE and COMEZ SIMMONS, :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4174

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a

GlaxoSmithKline.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04174-SD Document 8 Filed 10/04/2002 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

         The undersigned,  Christopher Martin, is the Chief Executive Officer of
First Sentinel Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company").

         This statement is being  furnished in connection with the filing by the
Company of the  Company's  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the  period  ended
September 30, 2003 (the "Report").

         By execution of this statement, I certify that:

                  A)       the Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of
                           Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
                           of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)) and

                  B)       the  information   contained  in  the  Report  fairly
                           presents,  in all material  respects,  the  financial
                           condition and results of operations of the Company as
                           of the  dates  and for  the  periods  covered  by the
                           Report.

November 14, 2003                       /S/ CHRISTOPHER MARTIN
-----------------                       ----------------------
Dated                                   Christopher Martin,
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BLUE BELL INN, INC. )

601 Skippack Pike )

Blue Bell, PA 19422, ) 

Plaintiff, ) 02cv4068 JF

)

v. )

)

ANDREW KAMARATOS and )

AGGI, L.P., d/b/a BLUE BELL DINER, )

1324 Skippack Pike )

Blue Bell, PA 19422, )

Defendants. )

ORDER

This matter having come on to be heard upon Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary

injunction, and this Court having considered the arguments of counsel and the exhibits and

declarations, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

a. Defendants have infringed upon Plaintiff’s registered trademarks;

b. Defendants’ infringement of said trademarks has been willful and

deliberate;

c. Defendants, their officers, agents, employees, privies, successors and

assigns, and all persons and entities holding by, through or under them, and those acting for or in

concert with them or in their behalf, are hereby preliminarily enjoined from further infringement;

and restrained from:

i. Using Plaintiff’s service marks, BLUE BELL INN and the blue bell

and ribbon design, BLUE BELL CAFÉ, or any reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable

imitation thereof, such as the “BLUE BELL DINER” and the blue bell and ribbon design and the

designation “BLUE BELL DINER RESTAURANT” used by the Defendants, as a trademark or

service mark, in any way, such as part of a domain name, or in any other way in connection with

the services of defendants;

ii. Competing unfairly with Plaintiff in any way in the rendition of

restaurant services through the use of the Plaintiff’s marks, or any colorable imitations thereof;

iii. Causing likelihood of confusion with products or services

originating from Plaintiff by using Plaintiff’s marks, or any colorable imitations thereof; 

iv. Defendants be required to deliver up for destruction to plaintiff’s counsel

Frank J. Benasutti, Esquire at his offices, 551 N.W. 77th Street, suite 111, Boca Raton, FL 33487

Case 2:02-cv-04068-JF Document 2-4 Filed 08/01/2002 Page 1 of 2
all articles, promotional and advertising material of any kind bearing the aforesaid trademarks or

any colorable imitations thereof.

e. Plaintiff be granted its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of bring this

motion.

Upon entry of this Order, Plaintiff shall be required to post bond within 10 days in

the amount of $5,000.00 pendente lite.

JOHN P. FULLAM

U. S. District Judge

Case 2:02-cv-04068-JF Document 2-4 Filed 08/01/2002 Page 2 of 2
No. 60738.

#### Air Express International Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 286114-K (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.
(Reap. Dec. 10929)

#### Midwood Industries, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 3529.

*582(Decided March 23, 1965)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

The proper value for dutiable purposes of certain steel flanges, imported from West Germany, forms the subject of the above-enumerated appeal for a reappraisement.

Said appeal has been submitted for decision upon a written stipulation of fact agreed to by the parties, the pertinent portion of which reads as follows:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the respective parties hereto that the merchandise covered by the appeal to reappraisement referred to above consists of steel fla,nges exported from West Germany in September I960; that steel flanges are not identified in the final list published by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54521; that on or immediately preceding the date of exportation of the shipment of steel flanges covered by this appeal to reappraisement, the prices at which steel flanges such as or similar to the steel flanges described o,n the invoice covered by the instant appeal to reappraisement were freely sold, or in the absence of sales, offered for sale in the principal market of Germany, in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, were the invoice unit values less discounts of 15% and 5%, net, packed ready for shipment to the U,nited States.

Upon the agreed facts of record, the court finds and holds that export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956 (19 U.S.C. § 1401a (b)), is the proper basis of value for the steel flanges in issue and that said value is represented by the invoice unit values, less discounts of 15 percent and 5 percent, net, packed ready for shipment to the United States.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Before the Second Division,

April 1, 1968

No. P68/186.

protests 62/15999, etc. (St. Louis).

#### James A. Green, Jr. & Co. *v.*United States,

Bao, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of thermo-plastic tape used in the electrical trade for wrapping electrical wire splices and connections similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Devon Tape Corp.*v. *United States*(57 Cust. Ct. 507, C.D. 2856), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.