alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 55526.

#### Associated Merchandising Corp. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 163990-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          21,573
<SECURITIES>                                    11,831
<RECEIVABLES>                                   34,277
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (2,848)
<INVENTORY>                                        822
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                71,407
<PP&E>                                          19,328
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (7,210)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  85,864
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           52,118
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        76,835
<OTHER-SE>                                    (48,709)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    85,864
<SALES>                                        132,036
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               132,036
<CGS>                                           20,089
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  122,262
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 748
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,567)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,343
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (10,315)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,910)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.43)


</TABLE>
#### H. W. Robinson & Co. *v.*United States

No. 7466.

Invoices dated London, England, December 31, 1941, etc.

Certified January 6, 1942, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., March 13, 1942, etc.

Entry Nos. 742085; 722897.

(Decided December 5, 1947)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Kincheloe, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 96-7785.

#### Atlas *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
March 10, 2015

Mr. Brandon Heess

12286 Brickellia Street

San Diego CA 92129

Dear Mr. Heess :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We entered your January 7, 2015 , exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA

- 20 15

- 0024) , but we are unable to pr ocess your request any further. The information you sent does

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request

any further, you must send us all of the following:

• The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and th e extent of

the relief you seek

.

• The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

• The reasons why the exemption would no t adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

• Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

W hat You Should Do

If you want us to proces s your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Nia Daniels

Program Analyst , Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure3

Project No.: AXX

- xx

- xxx

- E

Project Officer: _______________

ARM

- 104:TAdams:xx/xx/xx:Doc#xxxx

ARM

- 1/100/104:Program Office [or specific OPR routing symbol]

[ Insert Stylewriter Score Here ]

[INSERT ENVELOPE ADDRESS HERE]
United States Court of Appeals 

For the First Circuit 

Nos. 18-1165, 18-1166 

IN RE: THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR 

PUERTO RICO, AS REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF 

PUERTO RICO; THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR 

PUERTO RICO, AS REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PUERTO RICO HIGHWAYS & 

TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, 

Debtors. 

_____________________ 

ASSURED GUARANTY CORPORATION; ASSURED GUARANTY MUNICIPAL 

CORPORATION; FINANCIAL GUARANTY INSURANCE COMPANY; NATIONAL 

PUBLIC FINANCE GUARANTEE CORPORATION, 

Plaintiffs, Appellants, 

v. 

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, 

AS REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO; 

FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO; 

PUERTO RICO FISCAL AGENCY AND FINANCIAL ADVISORY AURTHORITY; 

THE FINANCIAL OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR PUERTO RICO, 

AS REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE PUERTO RICO HIGHWAYS & TRANSPORTATION 

AUTHORITY; RICARDO ROSSELLÓ-NEVARES; GERARDO JOSÉ PORTELAFRANCO; CARLOS CONTRERAS-APONTE; JOSÉ IVÁN MARRERO-ROSADO; 

RAÚL MALDONADO-GAUTIER; NATALIE A. JARESKO, 

Defendants, Appellees, 

JOSÉ B. CARRIÓN III; ANDREW G. BRIGGS; CARLOS M. GARCÍA; 

 ARTHUR J. GONZÁLEZ; JOSÉ R. GONZÁLEZ; ANA J. MATOSANTOS; 

DAVID A. SKEEL, JR.; CHRISTIAN SOBRINO, 

Defendants. 
-2- 

ERRATA SHEET 

The opinion of this Court, issued on March 26, 2019, is 

amended as follows: 

Replace the paragraph starting at page 21, line 1, and ending 

at page 22, line 7, with the following: 

Furthermore, contrary to the Insurers' contention, our 

construction does not render Section 922(d) 

superfluous. Before Congress adopted the 1988 

Amendments there was ample reason to believe that 

Section 362(a) stayed a creditor from accepting 

voluntary payments from a debtor or stayed a creditor 

from applying debtor funds already in the creditor's 

possession (as security) to the debt. See, e.g., 6 

Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 362.03 ("[I]nnocent conduct such 

as the cashing of checks received from account debtors 

of accounts assigned as security may be a technical 

violation [of Section 362(a)(6)]."). Thus, Section 

922(d) made clear that a creditor holding pledged 

special revenues as security may apply those revenues to 

outstanding debt, notwithstanding the automatic stay.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-61,176] 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on March 26, 2007 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers Schoeller Arca Systems, Detroit, Michigan. The workers at the subject firm produce foldable containers. 

The petitioner has requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated. 

Signed in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of April 2007 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.   

 [FR Doc. E7-8467 Filed 5-2-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
99-0104 (La. 4/23/99)

#### Rhonda Renee HOLT, et al. v. CANNON EXPRESS CORPORATION, et al.

No. 99-C-0104.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 23, 1999.

IN RE: Cannon Express Corp. Et Al; Vanliner Insurance Co.; Ramsey, Bobby; — Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review; Parish of Caddo First Judicial District Court Div. “I” Number 385,151; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, Number 31271-CA

Denied.

MARCUS and TRAYLOR, JJ. would grant the writ.

VICTORY, J. not on panel.
EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



|                                    |  |                                                             
|----------------------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|NAME                                |  | STATE OR OTHER JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION OR ORGANIZATION
|1.    ClassroomDirect.com, LLC      |  | Delaware                                                    
|                                    | 
|2.    Childcraft Education Corp.    |  | New York                                                    
|                                    | 
|3.    Bird-in-Hand Woodworks, Inc.  |  | New Jersey                                                  
|                                    | 
|4.    Frey Scientific, Inc.         |  | Delaware                                                    
|                                    | 
|5.    Sportime, LLC                 |  | Delaware                                                    
|                                    | 
|6.    Sax Arts & Crafts, Inc.       |  | Delaware                                                    
|                                    | 
|7.    New School, Inc.              |  | Delaware                                                    
|                                    | 
|8.    Premier Agendas, Inc.         |  | Washington                                                  
|                                    | 
|9.    Premier School Agendas, Ltd.  |  | Canada                                                      
|                                    | 
|10.    Amalgamated Widgets, Inc.    |  | Wisconsin                                                   
|                                    | 
|11.    Select Agendas, Corp.        |  | Canada                                                      
|                                    | 
|12.    Califone International, Inc. |  | Delaware                                                    
|                                    | 
|13.    Delta Education, LLC         |  | Delaware
An equal opportunity employer Thomas M. Gray 211(b) Technical Manager

1220 L Street, Northwest Washington, DC 20005-4070

Tel 202-682-8480

Fax 202-682-8270 E-mail grayt@api.org

December 27, 2011

Byron J. Bunker, Acting Division Director Compliance Division Office of Transportation and Air Quality US Environmental Protection Agency

2000 Traverwood Drive Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105

RE: CAA Section 211(b) Fuels and Fuel Additives Hea lth Effects Testing Regulation: Final Submission for 211(b) (Docket No. A-90-07) Final Report: Gasoline TAME Vapor Condensate: A 13-Week Whole-Body Inhalation Toxicity Study in Rats with Neurotoxicity Assessments and a 4-Week In Vivo Genotoxicity and Immunotoxicity Assessments (HLS Study No. 00-6128)

Dear Mr. Karl Simon:

The American Petroleum Institute (API), on behalf of the Section 211(b) Research Group (RG), is submitting the following information to EPA as partial fulfillment of the CAA Section 211(b) Alternative Tier 2 requirements of the testing regulation:

 Final Report: Gasoline TAME Vapor Condensate: A 13-Week Whole Body Inhalation Toxicity Study in Rats with Neurotoxicity Assessments and a 4-Week In Vivo Genotoxicity and Immunotoxicity Assessments (HLS Study No. 00-6128)

The Final Report has undergone review by two independent peer-reviewers, outside QA/QC, the 211(b) Technical Workgroup, and EPA (Hauchman to Oge, December 9, 20 10). Therefore the final report is being submitted to you at the EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Transportation and Regional Programs Division, as part of the requirements of Clean Air Act Section 211(b)(2) and 211(e) (Docket No. A-90-07).

If you require further information or have any ques tions regarding this submission, please contact me.

Regards,

Thomas M. Gray, M.S., DABT

Encl (2): Final report: Gasoline TAME Vapor Condensat e: A 13-Week Whole-Body Inhalation Toxicity Study in Rats with Neurotoxicity Assessments and a 4-Week In Vivo Genotoxicity and Immunotoxicity Assessments (HLS Study No. 00-6128)

Cc: Joe Sopata, EPA (via email)
34017.

#### GRIFFITH v. GRIFFITH.

Submitted September 8, 1978

Decided October 17, 1978.

C. *E. Thompson,*for appellant.

Jordan, Justice.

Appellant wife and appellee husband were divorced on July 14, 1975, and entered into an agreement which was made a part of the decree.

One paragraph of the agreement provided that "the husband shall cause to be paid to the wife one-half (1/2) of his Lockheed Savings account (or Savings Plan) balance as of July 1, 1975 . . .”

A dispute arose over the value of the account and on February 4, 1977, the husband filed a "rule nisi” asking the court to determine the amount the wife should receive, alleging the value to be $6,987. The wife answered claiming the value was at least $8,882. She also filed an attachment for contempt, alleging certain arrearages.

After a hearing on June 14, 1977, the trial court ordered the husband to pay the wife $3,493.50 as her one-half of the Lockheed account, ordered him to pay certain other obligations and awarded the wife attorney fees. This order was dated April 14,1978 (nunc pro tunc June 14,1977). The wife filed a motion for new trial which was denied and she appeals.

1. There is no transcript of the hearing on June 14, 1977. However, documentary evidence in the record indicates the value of the savings account to be either $6,987 or $8,882. The trial court found the "vested” value to be the lesser amount and awarded the wife one-half of that figure. There being evidence to support this finding, the judgment will be affirmed.

2. There is no merit in the contention that the trial court "erred in failing to state separately its conclusions of law,” or that the court "erred in withholding judgment from the date of the hearing on June 14, 1977 until the date of entry on April 14, 1978.”

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

*386
      *Parker, Parker & Poss, Richard F. Sheperd,*for appellee.
# C_2016048EN.01010101.xml

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/101 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/101

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (1st Chamber) of 9 December 2015 — Van der Veen v Europol

(Case F-45/15) (1)

1

((Civil Service - Europol staff - Member of the temporary staff - Decision 2009/371/JHA - Europol’s refusal to sign a contract for an indefinite period - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure - Action manifestly inadmissible))

(2016/C 048/117)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Mark Van der Veen (The Hague, the Netherlands) (represented by: J.-J. Ghosez, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Police Office (represented by: D. Neumann, J. Arnould and C. Falmagne, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the defendant’s implied decision not to follow up the applicant’s request for a contract for an indefinite period.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr Van der Veen shall bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Police Office. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Van der Veen shall bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Police Office.

---

(1)  OJ C 190, 8.6.2015, p. 34.

1

---
EX-10.1



 






Exhibit 10.1




Amendment to Employment Agreement




     This Amendment to Employment Agreement (this “Amendment”) is entered into by and between Dennis
M. DiFlorio (hereinafter “Employee”) and Commerce Bancorp, Inc. (and all of its affiliates and
subsidiaries) (hereinafter collectively “Commerce”), a New Jersey business corporation, effective
as of the date written below. This Amendment amends the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement
between Employee and Commerce dated as of October 2, 2007 (the “Employment Agreement”).



     For purposes of complying with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended,
the last sentence of Section 7.1(b) of the Employment Agreement is deleted, and in its place, the
following sentence is added:




“If and only to the extent that it becomes necessary to reduce any compensation payable to
Employee in order to comply with this provision, then (i) the installment of the Change in
Control Payment to be paid to Employee on the third anniversary of the Closing Date shall be
reduced first, (ii) the installment of the Change in Control Payment to be paid to Employee
on the second anniversary of the Closing Date shall be reduced second, (iii) the installment
of the Change in Control Payment to be paid to Employee on the first anniversary of the
Closing Date shall be reduced third, (iv) the installment of the Change in Control Payment
to be paid to Employee on the Closing Date shall be reduced fourth, and (v) any other cash
payments to be paid to Employee shall be reduced fifth, commencing with those payments
payable latest in time and ending with those payments payable earliest in time under the
terms of this Agreement.”



     In addition, Section 7.1(c) of the Employment Agreement (for purposes of clarity, including
subsections (i) and (ii) thereof) is hereby deleted, and all references thereto are hereby deleted.



     All other terms of the Employment Agreement remain unamended. This Amendment may be signed in
counterparts, all of which shall be considered one and the same instrument.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed this Amendment as of December 31, 2007.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	COMMERCE BANCORP, INC.
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Douglas J. Pauls	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	EMPLOYEE	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	/s/ Dennis M. DiFlorio	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Dennis M. DiFlorio
#### Frank W. SAVOY v. PORTSERV TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., et al.

No. 98-C-2848.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 8, 1999.

In re Savoy, Frank W.; — Plaintiffs); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; Office of Worker’s Compensation District 7 No. 90-01562; to.the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 98-CA-0359.

Denied

JOHNSON, J., not on panel.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

NATHAN ROBERT SAUERS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 524 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 19th day of February, 2020

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
33983.

#### BROWNING et al. v. ORR et al.

Per curiam.

This appeal is from the dismissal of a complaint for injunction and. other relief.

Browning sued Orr and her employers, alleging: Orr entered into a contract with Browning to solicit orders for his products. The contract provided: "In the event of cancellation, representative shall not solicit orders for products similar to or competitive with Pioneer’s products within the counties enumerated in paragraph 1 for a period of twelve months following the effective date of cancellation. Representative further agrees that for said period of twelve months he shall not personally, or as a partner, or as a member of management of another organization participate in the manufacture or distribution of products similar to or competitive with Pioneer’s products, within said counties.” Orr canceled *381her employment contract and has accepted employment with the other defendants to sell products in competition with those of Browning in violation of the quoted covenant.

Argued September 18, 1978

Decided October 17, 1978.

*Wayne F. Browning, Jr.,*for appellants.

*Donald A. Weissman, Katz, Paller & Land, James Killough,*for appellees.

The trial judge held that the contract "is overly broad and unreasonable by reason of the limitations on employment imposed by the second sentence of paragraph 11 which would prohibit defendant Orr’s employment in the 'manufacture’ of competing products in the defined area.” The complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim.

The appellant Browning asserts that the court erred in finding that the second sentence of the covenant not to compete is overly broad and unreasonable; and that, even if unreasonable, the court should have considered the first and second sentences as separate covenants.

The second sentence of the quoted provision of the contract imposes a greater limitation upon the employee than is necessary for the protection of the employer because the employee may not "participate in” the "manufacture” or distribution of products similar to, or competitive with, the employer’s products, which would prevent her employment in capacities dissimilar from her employment with the appellant, the soliciting of orders. *Howard Schultz & Assoc. v. Broniec,*239 Ga. 181, 184 (2) (236 SE2d 265) (1977).

This court has previously rejected the "blue pencil theory of severability” of an unreasonable restriction in an employment contract. *Rita Personnel Services v. Kot,*229 Ga. 314 (191 SE2d 79) (1972).

The trial judge did not err in finding that the covenant not to compete was illegal, and in dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
No. 47013.

#### Protests 801018-G, etc., of Alfred Kohlberg, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 45938 the protests were sustained.