alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1

SouthTrust Bank, N.A.
One Georgia Center
600 West Peachtree Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30308

September 10, 2001

Mr. David Gamsey
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Innotrac Corporation
6655 Sugarloaf Parkway
Duluth, Georgia 30097

Dear David:

Please accept this letter as evidence of SouthTrust's agreement to your request
that we amend section 2.1(a) of the Amended and Restated Loan and Security
Agreement between Innotrac Corporation, as Borrower, and SouthTrust Bank, as
Lender, as it relates to the "Margin Requirement", to reflect that advances
shall be made without being subject to such "Margin Requirement". It is further
understood and agreed that, in consideration of SouthTrust agreeing to provide
this amendment, Innotrac agrees that the Debt/Tangible Net Worth Covenant set
forth in section 12.1 of the Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement
shall be amended to provide that "Borrower shall have at all times a Leverage
ratio of not more than 1.50:1".

It is our intention to document such amendments at a later date, however, in
the interim we are providing this letter as evidence of our agreement of the
amendments. It is further understood that the remaining terms and conditions of
the Amended and Restated Loan and Security Agreement shall remain unchanged.

Please sign below indicating your acceptance of the terms of this letter, and
return it to me, to validate our agreement.

Please let me know if you need anything further.



Sincerely,

/s/ Noble
Noble Jones
Vice President

ACCEPTANCE: /s/ David L. Gamsey
           --------------------------------

DATE: 9/24/01
     --------------------------------------
December 27, 1943

No. 49070.

Suit 4429.

#### United *States*v. *Hochschild, Kohn & Co.*

affirmed in C. A. D. 255.
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1083 

To amend section 1214 of title 5, United States Code, to provide for stays 

during a period that the Merit Systems Protection Board lacks a quorum. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 10, 2017 

Mr. JOHNSON (for himself, Mrs. MCCASKILL, and Mr. GRASSLEY) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend section 1214 of title 5, United States Code, to 

provide for stays during a period that the Merit Systems 

Protection Board lacks a quorum. 

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

3 SECTION 1. STAYS BY MSPB DURING PERIODS WITH NO 

4 QUORUM. 

5 Section 1214(b)(1)(B) of title 5, United States Code, 

6 is amended— 

7 (1) by inserting ‘‘(i)’’ before ‘‘The Board may’’; 

8 and 

9 (2) by adding at the end the following: 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1083 IS

1 ‘‘(ii) If the Board lacks the number of members ap2 pointed under section 1201 required to constitute a 

3 quorum, any remaining member of the Board who was ap4 pointed, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, 

5 shall, upon request by the Special Counsel, extend the pe6 riod of any stay granted under subparagraph (A).’’. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
# C_2017300EN.01000501.xml

| 11.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/5

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 20 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Consiglio di Stato — Italy) — Marco Tronchetti Provera SpA and Others v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

(Case C-206/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Company law - Directive 2004/25/EC - Takeover bids - Second subparagraph of Article 5(4) - Possibility of changing the price of the offer in specific circumstances and according to clearly determined circumstances and criteria - National law providing an option for the supervisory authority to increase the price of a takeover bid in the event of collusion between the offeror or the persons acting in concert with it and one or more sellers))

(2017/C 300/06)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Consiglio di Stato

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Marco Tronchetti Provera SpA, Antares European Fund Limited, Antares European Fund II Limited, Antares European Fund LP, Luca Orsini Baroni, UniCredit SpA, Camfin SpA

Applicants:

Defendant: Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob)

Defendant:

Intervenening parties: Camfin SpA, Generali Assicurazioni Generali SpA, Antares European Fund Limited, Antares European Fund II Limited, Antares European Fund LP, Luca Orsini Baroni, Marco Tronchetti Provera & C. SpA, UniCredit SpA

Intervenening parties:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The second subparagraph of Article 5(4) of Directive 2004/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on takeover bids must be interpreted as not precluding a national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which enables a national supervisory authority to adjust upwards the price of a takeover bid in the event of collusion without setting out the specific conduct that characterises that notion, provided that the interpretation of that notion can be deduced in a sufficiently clear, precise and foreseeable manner from that law, using methods of interpretation recognised by national law.

---

(1)  OJ C 251, 11.7.2016.

1

---
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 6273

RANDY S. COOPER , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. PATRICK MIRANDY, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee

.

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

. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. , Senior District Judge. ( 5:16

- cv - 00085

- FPS

- RWT )

Submitted : July 26, 2018 Decided: July 31, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD , Circuit Judge , and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Randy S. Cooper, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Randy S. Cooper seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge , granting Respondent’s motion for summary judgment, denying Cooper’s motion to expunge information from his record, denying Cooper’s motion to appoint counsel, and dismissing Cooper’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2 253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 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 petition 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 Cooper has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealab ility 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
IPAC Operational Metrics for October 2023

- Sheet1
August 2023

ALC Contact Information 

Have you ever needed to get in touch with the “right” person at another Federal Program Agency, but 

didn’t know where to start looking? The Shared Accounting Module (SAM) offers a Contact List within 

the SAM website with one contact person for every Agency Location Code (ALC). This contact should 

be the main Classification Transactions & Accountability (CTA) / SF 224 point of contact, and direct you 

to the appropriate IPAC resource. 

To view your current ALC Contact Information, you may navigate to the “Agency Setup” tab of the IPAC 

website, and enter your ALC. To view the current ALC Contact file, login to the Shared Accounting 

Module (SAM) website with your Single-Sign On ID. Select Reports from the Navigation Menu, and then 

select Reference Data. You may then Download the ALC Contact File for All Agencies, and search for 

the agency information you need. 

You may have been one of the several IPAC users who have experienced issues in which they have 

needed to contact a separate ALC to resolve an IPAC or another Fund Balance with Treasury accounting 

issue. Users have noted that many agencies have not kept an updated listing of their user contacts with 

SAM, making it difficult to resolve issues with the correct point of contact, or reaching an agency contact 

at all. 

We highly recommend agencies check the SAM ALC Contact File and provide the most up-to date 

contact information if changes are necessary. Your agency’s contact information should be updated with 

any employee or location changes, or at least on an annual basis. Not providing the most up-to-date 

contact information could create problems for multiple agencies during month-end reporting with cash 

reconciliations and financial reporting or prevent other agencies from working with the most appropriate 

individuals within your agency. 
August 2023

In order to update the contact information on the SAM ALC Listing, contact the Bureau of Fiscal 

Service parties as follows:

4‐digit ALC 

To request a contact change for a 4‐digit ALC, the appropriate agency official from the

agency's administrative office should sign and email a formal request to Fiscal Service. Please 

direct the request to RRB.OSD.MIPR.DDM@fiscal.treasury.gov.

8‐digit ALC 

To request a contact change for an 8‐digit ALC, the appropriate agency official from the 

agency's administrative office should sign and email a formal request to Fiscal Service. Please 

direct the request to the Cash Analysis Branch at cab.card.fa@fiscal.treasury.gov.

Please note that this SAM ALC contact list is intended for audiences of several governmentwide 

system applications, so it should list one agency contact who is the most capable of directing a 

range of requests to the appropriate individual within their organization.
**EXHIBIT 12.2****FORM OF 302 CERTIFICATIONS**I, Stefano Colombo, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Telekom Austria AG;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report;  4. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15 (f)) for the company and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report thathas materially affected, or is reasonable likely to materially affect, the company’sinternal control over financial reporting; and 5. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditorsand the audit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: March 30, 2007         By  /s/ Stefano Colombo  Name:  Stefano Colombo   Title:  Chief Financial Officer
1

 Parties include all persons, corporations or other business entities, and insurance companies with

an interest in the case, and each entity with an interest in the case must attend the conference. In the case of

corporate or other business entities, the corporate official with ultimate settlement authority is required to attend. 

Where an insurance company is involved, a representative with ultimate settlement authority is also required to

attend. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LEONARD : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

MONTGOMERY INSURANCE SERVICES, INC: . NO.02-4156

:

:

ORDER

A Settlement Conference in the above-captioned case will be held on

SEPTEMBER 10, 2003 at 10:00AM before the Honorable Linda K. Caracappa, United States

Magistrate Judge, in Room 3042, U.S. Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106.

The Court assumes that settlement of this case is a real possibility, and the Court

has set aside the entire day for this conference. Parties are to remain present until expressly

released by the Court.

Counsel are directed to have clients with ultimate authority to settle

physically PRESENT in the courtroom for the duration of this conference.

1

 

Counsel are further directed to complete the enclosed Settlement Conference

Summary to be faxed or mailed to Chambers on or before SEPTEMBER 3, 2003.

BY THE COURT:

 

Hon. Linda K. Caracappa

267-299-7640/267-299-5075 Fax

Date: JULY 28, 2003

cc: 

Case 2:02-cv-04156-MMB Document 12 Filed 07/28/2003 Page 1 of 1
No. 55136.

#### Mr. and Mrs. Leo G. Weinberg *v.*United States,

protest 153909-K (St. Albans, Vt.).

Mollison, Judge:

This protest is directed against the action of the collector of customs at the port of St. Albans, Vt., in refusing to refund as drawback under the provisions of section 313 (c), Tariff Act of 1930 (19 Ü. S. C. § 1313 (c)), 99 per centum of the duties paid upon the importation of a certain mink cape which was subsequently exported as not conforming to specifications.

The essential facts are not in dispute. During a visit to Canada the plaintiffs purchased the mink cape in question in a department or specialty store upon the representation that it was of the best quality available both as to materials and workmanship. The plaintiffs are not engaged in the fur business, and possessed only a layman’s knowledge of such matters, and it was a condition of the sale that it could be revoked or cancelled by the plaintiffs if the cape was not of the represented quality.

Upon return to the United States and after the payment of duty, the plaintiffs caused the cape to be inspected by a fur appraiser, who reported that the quality was not of the best and the workmanship was poor.

Within 30 days after its entry, the cape was returned to customs custody and application was made to export the same with benefit of drawback under the provisions of section 313 (c), *supra.*It was thereupon exported and returned to the seller, who refunded the purchase price, but drawback was disallowed on the ground that the purchase was an over-the-counter transaction and the cape received was the one selected in Canada.

Section 313 (c) reads as follows:

SEC. 313. DRAWBACK AND REFUNDS.

*jfi*# * * * * *

(c) Merchandise not Conforming to Sample or Specifications. — Upon the exportation of merchandise not conforming to sample or specifications upon which the duties have been paid and which have been entered or withdrawn for consumption and, within thirty days after release from customs custody, returned to customs custody for exportation, the full amount of the duties paid upon such merchandise shall be refunded as drawback, less 1 per centum of such duties.

As has been stated, it was established that the purchase of the cape in Canada was made upon the condition that it be of the best quality available, and the purchasers were at that time not in a position to determine whether the cape conformed to that condition or specifications. Subsequent inspection by a competent appraiser established that the condition or specification as to quality was not met, and it is our view that the facts in this case, as contained in the record before us, entitle the plaintiffs to the relief that the statute was designed to afford.

Judgment will therefore issue sustaining the protest claim for refund, and the collector of customs will be directed to reliquidate the entry accordingly.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

____________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

: CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 04-489

v. :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-2805

NORVEL VAS, :

Defendant. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 13th day of June 2017, upon consideration of Defendant’s Motion to 

Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct his Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and the Government’s 

response, and for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby 

ORDERED as follows:

1. The Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct his Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 (Doc. Nos. 311, 309) is DENIED as to Ground One and DISMISSED as to 

Ground Two;

2. No certificate of appealability shall issue, and no evidentiary hearing shall be held;

and

3. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Cynthia M. Rufe

_____________________

CYNTHIA M. RUFE, J.
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 216 (Thursday, November 9, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 77374]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-24723]



[[Page 77374]]

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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail and USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] 
Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: November 9, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
November 1, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage[supreg] Contract 
88 to Competitive Product List. Documents are available at www.prc.gov, 
Docket Nos. MC2024-32, CP2024-32.

Sean Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2023-24723 Filed 11-8-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
i Results in Brief – 2017 Financial Report of U.S. Government 

RESULTS IN BRIEF

Highlights of the FY 2017 Financial Report of the U.S. Government

Where We Are Now

The Government’s net cost before

taxes and other revenues for FY 2017

was $4.5 trillion - an increase

of $128.8 billion (2.9 percent) from FY

2016.

Net cost equals gross costs of $4.6

trillion, less earned program revenues

(e.g., Medicare premiums, national

park entry fees), and then adjusted for

gains or losses from assumption

changes used to estimate future federal

employee and veterans benefits

payments.

The increase in net cost is the

combined effect of many offsetting

increases and decreases across the

Government.

Total Government tax and other

revenues grew by $29.3 billion (0.9

percent) to about $3.4 trillion for FY

2017.

The Government deducts $3.4 trillion

in tax and other revenues from its $4.5

trillion net cost (with some

adjustments) to derive its FY 2017

“bottom line” net operating cost of

$1.2 trillion.

By comparison, the Government’s budget deficit for FY 2017 was $665.7 billion – an increase of

$78.3 billion (about 13.3 percent) over FY 2016. The $491.0 billion difference between the budget

deficit and net operating cost is primarily due to accrued costs (incurred but not necessarily paid) that

are included in net operating cost, but not the budget deficit. These include but are not limited to

estimated future costs of federal employee and veterans benefits.
 Results in Brief – 2017 Financial Report of the U.S. Government ii

Where We Are Headed

The primary deficit is the difference

between non-interest spending and

receipts. As a ratio relative to GDP (the

primary deficit-to-GDP ratio), it is

useful for gauging long-term fiscal

sustainability.

This ratio spiked from 2009 through

2012 due to the financial crisis, the

ensuing severe recession, and increased

spending and temporary tax reductions

enacted to stimulate the economy and

support recovery. As an economic

recovery took hold, the primary deficitto-GDP ratio fell, and is projected to

shrink further through 2021 as

discretionary spending limits remain in

effect and economic recovery boosts

tax receipts.

After 2021, increased spending for

Social Security and health programs

due to the continued retirement of the

baby boom generation and increases in

health care costs is projected to result

in increasing primary deficits through

2038. After 2038, the ratio slowly

declines as the aging of the population

slows. These projections do not include

the effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs

Act of 2017.

Projections in the Financial Report

indicate that the Government’s debt-toGDP ratio is projected to remain relatively stable over the next decade, and then continuously rise over

the remaining projection period and beyond if current policy is kept in place. This trend implies that

current policy is not sustainable.

As long as changes in policy are not so abrupt as to slow economic growth, the sooner policy changes

are adopted, the smaller the changes to revenue and/or spending will need to be to return the

Government to a sustainable fiscal path.