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

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         4721174
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         3349031
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    3148391
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                       78780166
<ALLOWANCE>                                     630557
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                91733149
<DEPOSITS>                                    78300019
<SHORT-TERM>                                   5876590
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             511861
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          6276
<OTHER-SE>                                     7038403
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                91733149
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                6590411
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               285615
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               6876026
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             3125187
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             3280647
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          3595379
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   162000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                3390962
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 823309
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      500811
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    500811
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.76
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.76
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.37
<LOANS-NON>                                     390000
<LOANS-PAST>                                    112000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                470198
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    28634
<RECOVERIES>                                     26993
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               630557
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         630557


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

**NOTICE REGARDING CONSENT OF ARTHUR ANDERSENLLP**

 

On June 24,2002, the Company filed a Current Report on Form 8-K reporting that as of thatdate, the Company discontinued the engagement of Arthur Andersen LLP(“Andersen”) as its independent public accountants and engaged Deloitte &Touche LLP as its independent auditors for fiscal year 2002.  This Annual Report on Form 10-K, whichincludes the report of Andersen on the Company’s consolidated balance sheets asof December 28, 2001 and December 29, 2000, and the related consolidatedstatements of operations, shareholders’ investment and cash flows for each ofthe three years in the period ended December 28, 2001 and financial statementschedule, is incorporated by reference into our previously filed RegistrationStatements, File Nos. 33-26145, 333-50143 and 333-88161 (collectively, the“Registration Statements”).  Afterreasonable efforts, we have been unable to obtain Andersen’s consent toincorporate by reference into the Registration Statements its audit report withrespect to the financial statements of the Company as of December 28, 2001 andthe three years then ended.  Under thesecircumstances, Rule 437(a) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,permits us to file this Form 10-K without such consent from Andersen.  The absence of such consent may limitrecovery by investors on certain claims, including the inability of investorsto assert claims against Andersen under Section 11 of the Securities Act of1933, as amended, for any untrue statements of a material fact contained, orany omissions to state a material fact required to be stated, in those auditedfinancial statements.  In addition, theability of Andersen to satisfy any claims (including claims arising fromAndersen’s provision of auditing and other services to us) may be limited as apractical matter due to recent events regarding Andersen.
- Home
      - Grants          - Project Grants
        - Technical Assistance Grants
        - Curriculum Adaptation & Training Grant
        - Strategic Initiatives Grants
        - Education Support Program
        - Funding Toolkit 
      - News
      - Grantee Spotlights
      - Priority Investment Areas          - Court Pandemic Response and Recovery Grant Program 
      - Grant Management
      - About SJI          - Board of Directors
        - Executive Director
        - Past Members
        - SJI Budget 

                  - Home
                  - Grants                      - Project Grants
                    - Technical Assistance Grants
                    - Curriculum Adaptation & Training Grant
                    - Strategic Initiatives Grants
                    - Education Support Program
                    - Funding Toolkit 
                  - News
                  - Grantee Spotlights
                  - Priority Investment Areas                      - Court Pandemic Response and Recovery Grant Program 
                  - Grant Management
                  - About SJI                      - Board of Directors
                    - Executive Director
                    - Past Members
                    - SJI Budget 

### Supporting the Nation's Judicial System & the Public it Serves

#### 					ANNOUNCEMENT				

## SJI Board of Directors Meeting

The SJI Board of Directors will be meeting on Monday, March 28, 2022 at 1:00 PM ET.  The purpose of this meeting is to consider grant applications for the 2nd quarter of FY 2022, and other business.

**ADDRESS:**  The Nathan Deal Judicial Center, 330 Capitol Avenue, SE, Atlanta, GA, 30334.

#### LATEST NEWS & ANNOUNCEMENTS

                  -  Sixteen State Courts Participate in Groundbreaking Workshop for Racial Justice Education  Read More**   
                  -  New Resource: The Rural Justice Collaborative Digest for June 2024  Read More**   
                  -  SJI Board Awards FY 2024 Third Quarter Grants  Read More**   
                  -  SJI Executive Director, Jonathan Mattiello, Congressional Briefing Panelist on Capitol Hill  Read More**   

#### CONTACT US

          contact@sji.gov
                       Tel: 703.660.4979

#### HEADQUARTERS

                       State Justice Institute
                       12700 Fair Lakes Circle, Suite 340
                       Fairfax, VA 22033         

Website design by Segue Technologies, Inc.

            -  ** 
            -  **  **
V 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4821 

For the relief of Meriam Yahya Ibrahim, Martin Wani, and Maya Wani. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 9, 2014 

Mr. COTTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Meriam Yahya Ibrahim, Martin Wani, and 

Maya Wani. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR MERIAM 

4 YAHYA IBRAHIM, MARTIN WANI, AND MAYA 

5 WANI. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) 

7 and (b) of section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality 

8 Act, Meriam Yahya Ibrahim, Martin Wani, and Maya 

9 Wani shall each be eligible for issuance of an immigrant 

10 visa or for adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully 

11 admitted for permanent residence upon filing an applicaVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:15 Jun 10, 2014 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4821.IH H4821

tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4821 IH

1 tion for issuance of an immigrant visa under section 204 

2 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful perma3 nent resident. 

4 (b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Meriam Yahya 

5 Ibrahim, Martin Wani, or Maya Wani enters the United 

6 States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), 

7 he or she shall be considered to have entered and remained 

8 lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for ad9 justment of status under section 245 of the Immigration 

10 and Nationality Act as of the date of the enactment of 

11 this Act. 

12 (c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF

13 FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the ap14 plication for issuance of an immigrant visa or the applica15 tion for adjustment of status is filed with appropriate fees 

16 within 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

17 (d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.— 

18 Upon the granting of an immigrant visa or permanent res19 idence to Meriam Yahya Ibrahim, Martin Wani, and Maya 

20 Wani, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper offi21 cer to reduce by 3, during the current or next following 

22 fiscal year, the total number of immigrant visas that are 

23 made available to natives of the country of the aliens’ birth 

24 under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality 

25 Act or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4821 IH

1 that are made available to natives of the country of the 

2 aliens’ birth under section 202(e) of such Act. 

3 (e) DENIAL OF PREFERENTIAL IMMIGRATION

4 TREATMENT FOR CERTAIN RELATIVES.—The natural 

5 parents, brothers, and sisters of Meriam Yahya Ibrahim, 

6 Martin Wani, and Maya Wani shall not, by virtue of such 

7 relationship, be accorded any right, privilege, or status 

8 under the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### THE HARRIS CLAY COMPANY v. CAROLINA CHINA CLAY COMPANY et al.

(Filed 15 June, 1932.)

Venue A c — Cause of action in this case held transitory, and motion for change of venue as a matter of right was properly denied.

An action for damages caused by the pollution of a stream resulting in forcing the plaintiff to shut down his clay mining plant lower down along the stream is transitory, and where the plaintiff brings suit in the county in which its principal office is located, the defendant’s motion for a change of venue to the county wherein the land is situate, made as a matter of right, is properly refused. C. S., 463.

Appeal by defendants from *Moore, J.,*at Chambers, Asheville, 21 January, 1932. From Jagksoh.

Civil action to recover damages for breach of contract and for tort.

On 23 February, 1924, the plaintiff, a Jackson County corporation, leased from the individual defendants certain mining rights in lands located in Mitchell County.

Immediately following, the plaintiff took possession of said lands, installed equipment and started the operation of its mining plant.

It is alleged that sometime thereafter, the defendants erected a similar plant about two miles above plaintiff’s location, and has so polluted the waters of Big Bear Creek as to force the plaintiff to shut down its plant.

*13This action for damages was instituted in Jackson County, the county of plaintiff’s principal place of business, on 20 November, 1931. In apt time, the defendants lodged a motion for change of venue to Mitchell County as a matter of right. Motion overruled, and defendants appeal.

*E. P. Stillwell, Alley & Alley, McBee & McBee, Ban K. Moore and Edwards & Leatherwood for plaintiff.*

*Berry & Green, G. 0. Buchanan, Morgan & Gardner and Garter & Garter for defendants.*

Stacy, C. J.

The case turns on whether the action is local or transitory in its nature. If local, the defendants are entitled to have the cause moved to Mitchell County for trial as a matter of right. C. S., 463. If transitory, the motion for change of venue was properly overruled. *Causey v. Morris,*195 N. C., 532, 142 S. E., 783.

The action 'is for the recovery of damages and appears to be a transitory one. It sounds in neither ejectment nor replevin; nor is it an action for injury to real property, such as contemplated by the statute above cited. *Eames v. Armstrong,*136 N. C., 392, 48 S. E., 769; McIntosh, N. C. Practice & Procedure, 258.

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

TAHER ACHAGZAI , et al., Plaintiff s ,

v. BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS , Defendant

. Civil Action No. 1 4

- 768 (RDM)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On March 18, 2016, this Court issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on all counts for four of the five plaintiffs in this case and for all but four counts as to the fifth plaintiff. See Dkt. 52. The Court concluded that plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies for those counts and that equitable tolling of the exhaustion deadlines was not warranted. Id. Plaintiffs now ask this Court to

reconsider that decision. See Dkt. 57. They ch aracterize their motion as arising under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b). Dkt. 57 at 1. Because the Court denied summary judgment i n part , however, its decision was not a final judgment, and the Court wi ll instead

assume the motion invokes Rule 54(b), which provides that nonfinal orders “ that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties

. . . may be revised at any time before” the Court enters final jud gment.

R econsideration of interlocutory order s is permitted “‘as justice requires.’” Cobell v.

Jewell , 802 F.3d 12, 25 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (quoting Greene v. Union Mutual Life Ins. Co. of America, 764 F.2d 19, 22 (1st Cir. 1985) (Breyer, J.)). Courts in this District have recognized2 that relief under 54(e) is appropriate “when the movant demonstrates: ‘(1) an intervening change in the law; (2) the discovery of new evidence not previously available; or (3) a clear error in the

first order.’” Murphy v. Exec. Office for U.S. Attorneys , 11 F. Supp. 3d 7, 8 (D.D.C. 2014) (quoting Zeigler v. Potter, 555 F.Supp.2d 126, 129 (D.D.C. 2008)) ; see also Keystone Tobacco Co. v. U.S. Tobacco Co., 217 F.R.D. 235, 237 (D.D.C. 2003 )).

Plaintiff s ’ motion for reconsideration does not show that any of these circumstances

— or any other circumstances that might justify reconsideration

— are present here. The motion largely rehashes arguments Plaintiffs made in their motion in opposition to summary judgment, see Dkt. 33, their motion for a preliminary injunction, see Dkt. 41, and their supplemental memorandum on summary judgment, see Dkt. 50

. Despite multiple opportunities, Plaintiffs have failed to provide any evidence showing that they brought to the attention of an Equal Employment Opportunity Offi cer “an act contributing to ” their hostile work environment claims that “occur[red] within the filing period.” N at’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan , 536 U.S. 101, 11 7 (2002). They have likewise failed to p roduce any evidence that Defendants engaged in the sort of “affirmative misconduct” that would justify equitable tolling of the administrative deadlines for any of their claims. Baldwin Cty. Welcome Ctr. v. Brown , 466 U.S. 147, 151 (1984) (per curiam). Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, Dkt. 57, is DENIED

. SO ORDERED

. /s/ Randolph D. Moss RANDOLPH D. MOSS United States Distri ct Judge

Date: May 9 , 2016
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. § 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of First Chester County Corporation (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending March 31, 2009 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, EricSegal, Interim Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that:

 

(1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| Date:  July 26, 2010 |                             |
|---------------------------|----------------------------------|
|                      | /s/  Eric A. Segal               |
|                      | Eric  A. Segal                   |
|                      | Interim  Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4982 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4982

 To simplify the application used for the estimation and determination 
       of financial aid eligibility for postsecondary education.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 26, 2014

  Mr. Bucshon (for himself, Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania, Mr. Kline, Mr. 
 George Miller of California, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Bishop of New York, Mr. 
Polis, and Mr. Royce) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
            to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To simplify the application used for the estimation and determination 
       of financial aid eligibility for postsecondary education.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Simplifying the Application for 
Student Aid Act''.

SEC. 2. USING DATA FROM SECOND PRECEDING YEAR.

    Section 480(a)(1)(B) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 
1087vv(a)(1)(B)) is amended to read as follows:
                    ``(B) Notwithstanding section 478(a) and beginning 
                not later than the second January 1 after the date of 
                enactment of the Simplifying the Application for 
                Student Aid Act, the Secretary shall provide for the 
                use of data from the second preceding tax year to carry 
                out the simplification of applications (including 
                simplification for a subset of applications) used for 
                the estimation and determination of financial aid 
                eligibility. Such simplification shall include the 
                sharing of data between the Internal Revenue Service 
                and the Department, pursuant to the consent of the 
                taxpayer.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4856 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4856

To clarify that no express or implied warranty is provided by reason of 
  a disclosure relating to voluntary participation in the Energy Star 
                    program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 12, 2014

 Mr. Latta (for himself and Mr. Welch) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To clarify that no express or implied warranty is provided by reason of 
  a disclosure relating to voluntary participation in the Energy Star 
                    program, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Energy Star Program Integrity Act''.

SEC. 2. NO WARRANTY.

    Section 324A of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 
6294a) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(e) No Warranty.--
            ``(1) In general.--Any disclosure relating to participation 
        of a product in the Energy Star program shall not create an 
        express or implied warranty or give rise to any private claims 
        or rights of action under State or Federal law relating to the 
        disqualification of that product from Energy Star if--
                    ``(A) the product has been certified by a 
                certification body recognized by the Energy Star 
                program;
                    ``(B) the Administrator has approved corrective 
                measures, including a determination of whether or not 
                consumer compensation is appropriate; and
                    ``(C) the responsible party has fully complied with 
                all approved corrective measures.
            ``(2) Construal.--Nothing in this subsection shall be 
        construed to require the Administrator to modify any procedure 
        or take any other action.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 10.2

         SCHEDULE TO EXHIBIT 10.1: CHANGE OF CONTROL SEVERANCE AGREEMENT

Parties to Similar Agreements Omitted.

         G. Brent Marvosh
         Dean J. Mart
         Loyall Kissee
         Charles J. Hallingstad
         Michael J. McCleary

Material Differences in Agreements.

                  Sections 4(d)(B) and (C) of the Agreement with Bruce K.
Weldele provides for severance compensation equal to two times his annual base
salary plus any target bonuses and 24 months of continued welfare and employee
benefits. The same sections of the omitted Agreements provide for a lump sum
severance compensation payment equal to the annual base salary plus any target
bonus of the officer who is a party to the Agreement and 12 months of continued
welfare and employee benefits.