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






Laura Nyquist
Amendment to Project Orange Separation Letter dated June 6, 2018


As a clarification to your Project Orange separation letter dated June 6, 2018, the Compensation & Human Resource Committee clarify the application of the pro-rated annual bonus and equity acceleration benefits at the November 2, 2020 meeting.
(i)Your pro-rated bonus benefit shall apply to your bonus opportunity under the 2020 Management Incentive Plan, and 
(ii)The accelerated equity treatment shall also apply to your outstanding performance-based restricted share units (“PBRSUs”).  All outstanding and unvested time-based restricted share units ("RSU"), performance-based restricted share units ("PBRSU") and stock options as of your termination date that would otherwise be forfeited will fully vest. Distribution of vested PBRSU is subject to achievement of applicable performance goals; PBRSU shares will not be distributed until performance is certified at the end of the performance period.  













2
ra
VIA E-Mail \ \ TTEL
September 28, 1999 NN 047

Cynthia L. Johnson

Director, Cash Management Policy and Planning Division
Financial Management Service

Room 420,401

14" Street, SW

Washington, D.C. 20227

RE: Proposed Rule on the Payment of Federal Taxes and the
Treasury Tax and Loan Program

Dear Ms. Johnson:

The Credit Union National Association (CUNA) appreciates the opportunity to comment
on the rule proposed by Department of the Treasury (Treasury) that would change
regulation governing the Treasury Tax and Loan (TT&L) program and specifically
change the interest rate Treasury charges on TT&L note balances. These balances
include funds loaned through the direct investment and special direct investment
programs. CUNA represents more than 90 percent of our nation's 11,000 state and
federal credit unions and solicits their opinions on proposed regulations.

This rule was published in the Federal Register on July 30, 1999, and the revised
regulation would change the interest rate Treasury charges on TT&L note balances to an
overnight repurchase agreement rate. The TT&L program has two separate components:
a depositary component through which the Treasury collects Federal tax deposits and
payments from business taxpayers for employee withholding and other types of taxes,
and an investment component though which the Treasury invests short-term operating
balances not needed for immediate cash outlays.

Treasury proposes that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) compile and
publish a volume-weighted average overnight repurchase agreement rate. Treasury
proposes that the FRBNY compile this rate from data it would obtain from its domestic.
open market counter parties (the primary dealers) regarding the volume-weighted average
overnight rate the primary dealers paid to finance general collateral securities. In
addition, Treasury proposes that the Federal Reserve Board of Governors publish an
overnight repurchase agreement rate on a basis similar to that used to publish the Federal
funds rate.

CUNA has no objections to the proposed rule because there would be little change in the
actual interest rate under the TT&L program. Under the current rule, the TT&L interest


rate is the Federal funds rate minus 25 basis points. According to Treasury, this rate was
originally set to approximate the overnight repurchase agreement rate, when the
overnight repurchase agreement market was new and a published rate was not available.
Now that the Treasury can request that the Federal Reserve publish an overnight
repurchase agreement rate the change in the interest formula appears reasonable.

Sincerely,

Jiicete & Pref

Michelle Q. Profit
103219 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Stanford Glaberson, et al., ) Civil Action No. 03-6604 

 ) 

 Plaintiffs, ) The Honorable John R. Padova 

 ) 

v. ) 

 ) 

Comcast Corporation, et al., ) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

CLASS PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE OPPOSITION TO 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A REPLY IN FURTHER SUPPORT 

OF THEIR MOTION TO STRIKE

Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c), Class Plaintiffs, by their counsel, respectfully request leave 

to file a brief opposition memorandum (“Opposition”) (attached as Exhibit 1) in response to 

Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a Reply in Further Support of Their Motion to Strike. The 

Opposition is necessary to respond to and correct Comcast’s assertions of inaccurate statements 

contained in Plaintiffs’ Reply Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Certification of 

Revised Philadelphia Class and Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Strike and to support entry 

of a briefing scheduling order consistent with the Court’s June 21, 2013 Order to assist the Court 

in ruling upon Class Plaintiffs’ Motion for Certification of Revised Philadelphia Class. 

Dated: October 11, 2013 Respectfully submitted, 

s/ David Woodward

Samuel D. Heins 

Vincent J. Esades 

David Woodward 

Jessica N. Servais 

HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C. 

310 Clifton Avenue 

Minneapolis, MN 55403 

Tel: (612) 338-4605 

Fax: (612) 338-4692 

Case 2:03-cv-06604-JP Document 567 Filed 10/11/13 Page 1 of 3
103219 

2 

Barry Barnett 

Daniel H. Charest 

LeElle Krompass 

SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P. 

901 Main Street, Suite 5100 

Dallas, TX 75202-3775 

Tel: (214) 754-1900 

Fax: (214) 754-1933 

Anthony J. Bolognese (#36937) 

Joshua H. Grabar (JHG 1707) (#82525) 

BOLOGNESE & ASSOCIATES, LLC 

Two Penn Center Plaza 

1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 320 

Philadelphia, PA 19102 

Tel: (215) 814-6750 

Fax: (215) 814-6764 

Joseph Goldberg 

FREEDMAN BOYD HOLLANDER GOLDBERG 

URIAS & WARD, P.A. 

200 Third Street NW 

Albuquerque, NM 87102 

Tel: (505) 842-9960 

Fax: (505) 842-0761 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

 

Case 2:03-cv-06604-JP Document 567 Filed 10/11/13 Page 2 of 3
103219 

3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned attorney certifies that on this 11th day of October, 2013, he caused the 

foregoing Motion, Exhibit 1 and the [Proposed] Order to be served upon counsel of record via 

the Court’s ECF system. 

 s/ David Woodward

 David Woodward 

Case 2:03-cv-06604-JP Document 567 Filed 10/11/13 Page 3 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

VIRGINIA and BEN BOSSI :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4234

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-04234-RBS Document 7 Filed 09/16/2002 Page 1 of 1
13 CA ADC § 2268 Page 1

13 CCR s 2268
Cal. Admin. Code tit. 13 , s 2268

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. BARCLAYS OFFICIAL CALIFORNIA CODE OF

REGULATIONS
TITLE 13. MOTOR VEHICLES
DIVISION 3. AIR RESOURCES BOARD
CHAPTER 5. STANDARDS FOR MOTOR V EHICLE FUELS
ARTICLE 1. STANDARDS FOR GASOLINE
SUBARTICLE 2. STANDARDS FOR GASOLINE SOLD BEGINNING MARCH 1, 1996 This database is current through 12/26/2003, Register

2003, No. 52.

s 2268. Liability of Persons Who Commit Violations I nvolving Gasoline That Has Not Yet Been Sold or Supplied
to a Motor Vehicle.

(a) For the purposes of this subarticle, each sale of Cal ifornia gasoline at retail, and each dispensing of California gasoli ne into a motor vehicle fuel tank, shall also be deemed a sale or supply by any person who previously sold or supplied such gasoline in violation of any applicable
section of this subarticle.

< General Materials (GM)

- References, Annotations, or

Tables >

Note: Authority cited: Sections 39600, 39601, 43013, 43013.1, 43018 and 43101, Health and Safety Code; and Western Oil and Gas Ass'n. v. Orange County Air Poll ution Control District, 14 Cal.3d 411, 121 Cal. Rptr. 249 (1975). Reference: Sections 39000, 39001, 39002, 39003, 39500, 39515, 39516, 41511, 43000, 43013.1, 43016, 43018 and 43101, Health and Safety Code; and Western Oil and Gas Ass'n. v. Orange County Air Pollution Control District, 14 Cal.3d 411, 121 Cal. Rptr. 249 (1975).

HISTORY

1. New section filed 11

- 16

- 92; operative 12

- 16

- 92 (Register 92, No. 47).

2. Amendment of Note filed 8

- 3

- 2000; operative 9

- 2

- 2000 (Register 2000, No. 31).

13 CA ADC s 2268
END OF DOCUMENT
Before the Second Division,

April 8, 1968

No. P68/196.

protests 64/23417 and 65/13929 (Seattle).

#### Hanken Imports and Harper, Robinson & Co. *v.*United States,

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protests consists of rayon labels similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Bruce Duncan Co., Inc., a/c Standard Commodities Import & Export Corp.*v. *United States*(51 Cust. Ct. 27, C.D. 2409), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP-76,487

EX PARTE BRANDI EDWARDS, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 20023-A IN THE 336 DISTRICT COURT

TH

FROM FANNIN COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of one count of

aggravated sexual assault of a child, sentenced to 60 years’, and one count of indecency with a child

and sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment. 

Applicant contends that her counsel rendered ineffective assistance because he failed to

timely file a notice of appeal. We remanded this application to the trial court for findings of fact and

conclusions of law.
2

The trial court has determined that trial counsel failed to timely file a notice of appeal. We

agree. We find, therefore, that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time appeal

of the judgment of conviction in Cause No. 20023-A from the 336 Judicial District Court of Fannin th

County. Applicant is ordered returned to that time at which she may give a written notice of appeal

so that she may then, with the aid of counsel, obtain a meaningful appeal. All time limits shall be

calculated as if the sentence had been imposed on the date on which the mandate of this Court issues. 

We hold that, should Applicant desire to prosecute an appeal, she must take affirmative steps to file

a written notice of appeal in the trial court within 30 days after the mandate of this Court issues.

Delivered: February 2, 2011

Do Not Publish
No. 52504.

protest 133351-K (New York).

#### Lennart Clase *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cole, J.

At the trial counsel for the defendant moved for dismissal of the protest on the ground that “it is insufficient in law,” calling attention to section 514, Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1514), which requires that a protest shall set forth “distinctly and specifically, and in respect to each entry, payment, claim, decision, or refusal, the reasons for the objection thereto.” That plaintiff recognized the insufficiency of his protest was disclosed by counsel’s admission at the time of trial and his motion, which was granted, to file an amended protest. Such an amended protest was never offered. An examination of the record disclosing nothing from which to draw the classifications urged or the rates claimed, the motion to dismiss was granted. *(Davies*v. *Arthur,*96 U. S. 148; *United States*v. *Salambier,*170 U. S. 621; and *Herrmann*v. *Robertson,*152 U. S. 520, followed.)
No. 64764.

#### Canada Packers, Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 59/31388, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of prepared or preserved pork similar in all material respects to that the subject of *C. J. Tower & Sons*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 36, C.D. 2100), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Zw ac IPAC Operational Metrics for July 2020

Volume by Transaction Type

Dollar Amount] ‘% of Total Dollar Amount] Number of Transactions] _% of Total Number of Transactions
Fiduciary (investment & Borrowing) 18,236 369,312,498 99.77%| 17,613] 14.81%
Buy/Seu 34,681,920,406 0.19%| 100,041) 84.14%
Benefits (RITS) 7,235,071,645| 0.03%] 436 0.37%]
[Check Aftermath (TRACS) 140,499,075| 0.00% 813] 0.68%]
Zero Dollar
[Grand Total - July 2020
[Grand Total - June 2020

[May to June Change
Percentage Change
[Grand Total - July 2019

[July 2019 to July 2020 Change
Percentage Change
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

RITA DERUNTZ :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4162

Plaintiff, :

:

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-04162-LR Document 7 Filed 09/20/2002 Page 1 of 1
Before the Second Division,

December 4, 1959

No. 63560.

protests 58/21186, etc. (Los Angeles).

#### Tap Equipment Co., DBA Thrifty Equipment Universal Foreign Service, et al. *v.*United States,

Ford, Judge:

The protests listed in schedule “A,” annexed hereto and made a part hereof, were consolidated for the purpose of trial. The merchandise, the subject of these protests, consists of parts of D.2 and D.4 caterpillar tractors, as well as parts of a HD.5 Allis Chalmers tractor, which were classified under the provisions of paragraph 372 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified by the Sixth Protocol of Supplementary Concessions to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 91 Treas. Dec. 150, T.D. 54108, as “Parts of machinery, wholly or in chief value of metal, n.s.p.f.” Duty was assessed thereon at the rate of 13 per centum ad valorem or 12 per centum ad valorem depending upon date of entry.

It is claimed that said items are properly entitled to entry free of duty under the provisions of paragraph 1604 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as parts of agricultural implements.

It was stipulated by and between counsel for the respective parties as follows:

> *419I offer to stipulate that the items identified on Entries 9289, 9397, and 6640, covered by Protest 58/21186 and Protest 321212-K(B), being D.4 track chain assembly, or top rollers, or master bushes, are essential parts o£ a D.4 caterpillar tractor.

> Further, that the D.4 tractor, eaterpiller tractor, is chiefly used on the farm in agricultural pursuits.

> Further, that the items identified on Entry 9107 and Entry 4241, covered by Protest 321212-K(B) as being HD.5 track chain assembly or roller group or sprockets, are essential parts of an HD.5 Allis Chalmer tractor; and that the HD.5 Allis Chalmer tractor is chiefly used on the farm in agricultural pursuit.

> And further, that the items identified on Entries 4241 and 6640, covered by Protest 321212-K(B) as D.2 track chain parts or roller assemblies, are the same in all material respects as that involved in Abstract 62985.

In *Thrifty Equipment Co. and Universal Foreign Service, Inc.*v. *United States,*42 Cust. Ct. 356, Abstract 62985, we held certain parts of the D.2 caterpillar tractor to be entitled to entry free of duty as parts of agricultural implements.

Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact and based upon our decision in the *Thrifty Equipment Co.*case, *supra,*we find and hold the involved merchandise to be entitled to entry free of duty under the provisions of paragraph 1604 of the Tariff Act of 1930.
Super Master Account File (SMAF) Attribute Confirmation

Federal entities are required to report timely and accurate adjusted trial balance data within 

the Governmentwide Treasury Account Symbol Adjusted Trial Balance System (GTAS). The SMAF is a 

module within GTAS that contains Treasury Account Symbol (TAS) level applicable attributes and 

balances both budgetary and proprietary interfaced from the system of record, Central Accounting 

Reporting System (CARS). TAS level applicable budgetary attributes within CARS are obtained by 

legislation as well as the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) specific data requirements. TAS 

level applicable proprietary attributes within CARS/GTAS are obtained by the United States Standard 

General Ledger (USSGL) attribute table.

The GTAS team on a quarterly basis will request a data call from Federal entities that they 

review each TAS and its attributes in their respective SMAF. In the data call, entities will be sent a 

SMAF confirmation report that will contain all the TAS assigned to their FR Entity. Once entities have 

returned the data call, SMAF confirmation report files will be saved electronically by Fiscal Service. If 

there are any discrepancies found by entities, they will be noted in the SMAF confirmation report that 

is returned to Fiscal Service. The GTAS team will work with the appropriate POC to validate the change. 

If any changes are made to the SMAF, the changes will be saved electronically and the GTAS POC will 

inform entities of the change. 

The objective in establishing a full SMAF Attribute Confirmation is to provide better accuracy 

and reliability in reporting of GTAS data.

For more information please contact your GTAS POC and/or the GTAS Team at: 

GTAS.team@fiscal.treasury.gov
# C_2015118EN.01003602.xml

| 13.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/36

---

Action brought on 12 February 2015 — Polo Club v OHIM — Lifestyle Equities (POLO CLUB SAINT-TROPEZ HARAS DE GASSIN)

(Case T-67/15)

(2015/C 118/46)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Polo Club (Gassin, France) (represented by: D. Masson, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Lifestyle Equities CV (Amsterdam, Netherlands)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Applicant

Applicant of the trade mark at issue:

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word elements ‘POLO CLUB SAINT-TROPEZ HARAS DE GASSIN’ — Application for registration No 10 525 137

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 21 November 2014 in Case R 1882/2013-5

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and register the trademark applied for in its entirety; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and register the trademark applied for in its entirety;

| — | order OHIM to bear the costs of proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order OHIM to bear the costs of proceedings.

Pleas in law

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Articles 8(1)(b) and 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
No. 61753.

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

protests 275123-K and 275124-K (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of photographic cameras similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Manca, Inc.*v. *United States*(38 Cust. Ct. 271, C. D. 1874), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 99-4501 JOHN PEARSON, a/k/a JP, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (CR-99-15) Submitted: November 18, 1999 Decided: November 30, 1999 Before WILKINS, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL George A. Mills, III, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Ray M. Shepard, Assistant United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________OPINION PER CURIAM: John Pearson pled guilty to aiding and abetting the distribution of cocaine base (crack), see21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1994), and was sentenced as a career offender to a term of 151 months imprisonment. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1 (1998). Pearson seeks to appeal the district court's decision not to depart below the career offender guideline range on the ground that it over-represented his criminal history. See USSG § 4A1.3, p.s. We dismiss. A sentencing court's decision not to depart is not reviewable on appeal unless the decision is based on a perception that the court lacks authority to depart. See United States v. Hall , 977 F.2d 861, 863 (4th Cir. 1992); United States v. Bayerle , 898 F.2d 28, 31 (4th Cir. 1990). There is no doubt in this case that the court understood its authorityto depart. The court simply decided that a departure was not warranted. To the extent that the court relied on our pre-Koon * decision in United States v. Brown , 23 F.3d 839, 840-42 (4th Cir. 1994) (holding that a § 4A1.3 departure is not justified by the fact that a prior drug conviction involved a small amount of drugs), the court did not err. See United States v. Pearce , ___ F.3d ___, 1999 WL 710315, at *10 (4th Cir. Sept. 13, 1999) (reaffirming holding in Brown ).We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED

_________________________________________________________________ *Koon v. United States , 518 U.S. 81, 100 (1996). 2