alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Irene Brown et al., Respondents, v Melville Industrial Associates, Appellant.

[823 NYS2d 697]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J), dated July 27, 2005, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

The plaintiff Irene Brown allegedly tripped on a rock in a parking lot adjacent to the defendant’s building near a median. The plaintiff claimed she observed the rock, which was approximately the size of a half dollar, after stepping on it.

The defendant made a prima facie showing that the complained-of condition was both open and obvious, i.e., readily observable by those employing the reasonable use of their senses, and not inherently dangerous (see *Cupo v Karfunkel,*1 AD3d 48 [2003]; *Sun Ho Chung v Jeong Sook Joh,*29 AD3d 677 [2006]; *Webber v Miller,*17 AD3d 352 [2005]; *DeLaurentis v Marx Realty & Improvement,*300 AD2d 343 [2002]; *Osborne v Village of N. Tarrytown,*180 App Div 224 [1917]; *see also Capozzi v Huhne,*14 AD3d 474 [2005]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the rock in the parking lot constituted an inherently dangerous condition or whether it was open and obvious (see *Misir v Beach Haven Apt. No. 1, Inc.,*32 AD3d 1002 [2006]; *Capozzi v Huhne, supra; DeLaurentis v Marx Realty & Improvement, supra).*Accordingly, the Supreme Court improperly denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Krausman, J.E, Rivera, Spolzino and Lifson, JJ., concur.
#### § 39.1200 Definitions.

Contract school operation and maintenance costs for fiscal year 1979 means the sum of costs for custodial salaries and fringe benefits, related supplies and equipment and equipment repair, insurance, and school operation utilities costs, where such costs are not paid by the Division of Facilities Management or other noneducation Bureau sources.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 27.1
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF RAILWORKS CORPORATION FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       5,318,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              134,359,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   491,000
<INVENTORY>                                 17,846,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           216,893,000
<PP&E>                                      75,201,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               9,192,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             481,409,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      107,129,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     14,000
<COMMON>                                       139,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 126,126,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               481,409,000
<SALES>                                    325,908,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           325,908,000
<CGS>                                     (258,043,000)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             (258,043,000)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           (35,662,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         (12,370,000)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             21,546,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                (8,080,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                13,466,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .97
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .88


</TABLE>
### §8474. United States Naval Academy Museum Fund: references to Fund

Any reference in a law, regulation, document, paper, or other record of the United States to the United States Naval Academy Museum Fund formerly maintained under this section shall be deemed to refer to the United States Naval Academy Gift and Museum Fund maintained under section 8473 of this title.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 436, §6974; Pub. L. 106–398, §1 [[div. A], title IX, §942(d)(1)], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A–242; renumbered §8474 and amended Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §§807(c)(1), 809(a), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1836, 1840.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 6974(a) | 34 U.S.C. 1118. | Mar. 26, 1938, ch. 52, §3, 52 Stat. 119. |
| 6974(b) | 34 U.S.C. 1119. | Mar. 26, 1938, ch. 52, §4, 52 Stat. 119. |
| 6974(c) | 34 U.S.C. 1120. | Mar. 26, 1938, ch. 52, §5, 52 Stat. 119. |

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 6974 of this title as this section and substituted "section 8473" for "section 6973".

2000—Pub. L. 106–398 amended section catchline and text generally. Prior to amendment, section related to acceptance and administration of gifts, bequests, and loans for the benefit of the Naval Academy Museum.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.

#### Consolidation of Naval Academy General Gift Fund and Naval Academy Museum Fund

Pub. L. 106–398, §1 [[div. A], title IX, §942(b)], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A–241, provided that:

"(1) The Secretary of the Navy shall transfer all amounts in the United States Naval Academy Museum Fund established by section 6974 [now 8474] of title 10, United States Code, to the gift fund maintained for the benefit and use of the United States Naval Academy under section 6973 [now 8473] of such title. Upon completing the transfer, the Secretary shall close the United States Naval Academy Museum Fund.

"(2) Amounts transferred under this subsection shall be merged with other amounts in the gift fund to which transferred and shall be available for the purposes for which amounts in that gift fund are available."
EERE-2012-BT-TP-0016

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR

CONSUMER PRODUCTS: TEST PROCEDURES FOR REFRIGERATORS, 

REFRIGERATOR-FREEZERS, AND FREEZERS

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW.

Washington, DC 20585

Thursday, July 25, 2013

9 a.m. – 4 p.m. EDT, Room 8E-089

Purpose

During this meeting the Department of Energy (DOE) will present the notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NOPR) on test procedures for refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers. This meeting is 

intended to familiarize interested stakeholders with DOE’s statutory requirements and proposed test 

procedures for these products.

Agenda

9:00-9:05 am Welcome

9:05-9:15 am Opening Remarks, Introductions, and Agenda Review

Doug Brookman

9:15-9:25 am Introduction and Background

Doug Brookman

9:25-9:35 am Regulatory History and Products Covered 

by the Test Procedure Changes

Lucas Adin

9:35 – 10:30 am Test Procedure Amendments: Icemaking

Andrew Jean-Louis

10:30-10:45 am Break

10:45 – 11:45 am Test Procedure Amendments: Icemaking, continued

Andrew Jean-Louis

11:45 am -12:30 pm Test Procedure Amendments, continued

Detlef Westphalen

12:30-1:30 pm Break for Lunch (on your own)

1:30 -2:15 pm Test Procedure Amendments, continued

Detlef Westphalen
EERE-2012-BT-TP-0016

2:15-2:30 pm Test Procedure Amendments, continued

Lucas Adin

2:30-2:45 pm Other Issues Under Consideration

Lucas Adin

2:45-3:00 pm Break

3:00-3:30 pm Compliance with Other EPCA Requirements

Detlef Westphalen

3:30-4:00 pm Conclusions and Closing Remarks

Doug Brookman

4:00 pm Adjourn
# C_2006190EN.01002501.xml

| 12.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/25

---

Action brought on 20 June 2006 — Adobe v OHIM (FLEX)

(Case T-158/06)

(2006/C 190/45)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Adobe Systems Inc. (San Jose, USA) (represented by: M. Graf, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 April 2006 in Case R 1430/2005-2 Adobe Systems Incorporated v OHIM (Flex) insofar as it dismissed the appeal for other goods than ‘computer hardware; computer peripherals and data processing equipment’ in class 9 and the services applied for of class 42. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 11 April 2006 in Case R 1430/2005-2 Adobe Systems Incorporated v OHIM (Flex) insofar as it dismissed the appeal for other goods than ‘computer hardware; computer peripherals and data processing equipment’ in class 9 and the services applied for of class 42.

| — | Order the Office to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Office to bear its own costs and to pay those of the applicant.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘FLEX’ for goods and services in classes 9, 38 and 42 — application No 3 795 011

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the examiner: Refusal of the application

Decision of the examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partial dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Council Regulation No 40/94 and failure to take prior national registrations into account.

Pleas in law:

---
### [§2359a. Renumbered §4061]

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 2359a, added Pub. L. 107–314, div. A, title II, §242(a)(1), Dec. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 2494; amended Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title II, §255(a), Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3180; Pub. L. 109–364, div. A, title X, §1071(a)(2), Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2398; Pub. L. 110–181, div. A, title II, §233, Jan. 28, 2008, 122 Stat. 46; Pub. L. 110–417, [div. A], title II, §253(b), Oct. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 4402, related to Technology Transition Initiative, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 112–81, div. A, title II, §251(a)(1), Dec. 31, 2011, 125 Stat. 1347.
156 So.2d 364

#### Johny Raymond BANKS v. STATE of Alabama.

3 Div. 81.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Sept. 5, 1963.

Johny Raymond Banks, pro ami.

Richmond M. Flowers, Atty. Gen., and John G. Bookout, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

GOODWYN, Justice.

From the documents filed here it appears that Johny Raymond Banks, who is confined in Kilby Prison under three separate sentences imposed by the circuit court of Pickens County, filed a habeas corpus petition in the circuit court of Montgomery County; that a writ of habeas corpus was issued as prayed for; that a return to the writ was made; and that, on April 10, 1963, after a hearing, a judgment was rendered that Banks was “not entitled to his discharge on habeas corpus, that the writ be discharged and that * * * Banks be remanded to the custody” of the warden of Kilby Prison.

It does not appear that an appeal was taken from said judgment as authorized by Code 1940, Tit. 15, § 369. And the documents before us, considered as embodying an original petition for habeas corpus, will have to be stricken.

We have held that the proper method of reviewing a circuit judge’s action in a case like this is by appeal, and not by an original petition for habeas corpus addressed to this court. Code 1940, Tit. 15, § 369; Ex parte Burton, ante, p. 345, 155 So.2d 298; Ex parte Smith, ante, p. 344, 155 So.2d 297; Ex parte Smotherman, 140 Ala. 168, 170, 37 So. 376; Keene v. Wiman, 274 Ala. 219, 147 So.2d 817; Johnson v. Williams, 244 Ala. 391, 393, 13 So.2d 683; Vernon v. State, 240 *505Ala. 577, 579, 200 So. 560, cert. den. Vernon v. Wilson, 313 U.S. 559, 61 S.Ct. 837, 85 L.Ed. 1519; Ellis v. State, 41 Ala.App. 438, 135 So.2d 814, cert. den. 273 Ala. 707, 135 So.2d 815, cert. den. 368 U.S. 932, 82 S.Ct. 369, 7 L.Ed.2d 195, cert. den. 369 U.S. 807, 82 S.Ct. 650, 7 L.Ed.2d 554.

The State’s motion to strike the petition (considering the documents as an original petition for habeas corpus) is due to be granted.

Petition stricken.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON and COLEMAN, JJ., concur.
### [§114a. Renumbered §221]
# C_2006281EN.01003301.xml

| 18.11.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 281/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 281/33

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 4 October 2006 — Tillack v Commission

(Case T-193/04) (1)

1

(Investigation by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) into the publication of confidential information - Suspicions of bribery and breach of professional secrecy - Communication to national judicial authorities of information relating to situations liable to lead to criminal proceedings - Search of the home and office of a journalist - Action for annulment - Admissibility - Action for damages - Causal link - Sufficiently serious breach)

(2006/C 281/56)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Hans-Martin Tillack (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: I. Forrester QC, T. Bosly, C. Arhold, N. Flandin, J. Herrlinger and J. Siaens, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: C. Docksey and C. Ladenburger, Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the applicant: International Federation of Journalists (IFJ) (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: A. Bartosch and T. Grupp, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the applicant:

Re:

APPLICATION, first, for the annulment of the act by which, on 11 February 2004, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) forwarded to the German and Belgian judicial authorities information concerning suspicions of breach of professional secrecy and bribery and, second, for damages in compensation for non-material injury suffered by the applicant as a result of the forwarding of that information and of the publication of press releases by OLAF.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Declares it unnecessary to give judgment on the request for the production of documents; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares it unnecessary to give judgment on the request for the production of documents;

| 3. | Orders the applicant to pay his own costs and the costs incurred by the Commission, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the applicant to pay his own costs and the costs incurred by the Commission, including those relating to the interlocutory proceedings;

| 4. | Orders the International Federation of Journalists to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the International Federation of Journalists to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 251, 9.10.2004.

1

---
### §948j. Military judge of a military commission

(a) Detail of Military Judge.—A military judge shall be detailed to each military commission under this chapter. The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe regulations providing for the manner in which military judges are so detailed to military commissions. The military judge shall preside over each military commission to which such military judge has been detailed.

(b) Eligibility.—A military judge shall be a commissioned officer of the armed forces who is a member of the bar of a Federal court, or a member of the bar of the highest court of a State, and who is certified to be qualified for duty under section 826 of this title (article 26 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice) as a military judge of general courts-martial by the Judge Advocate General of the armed force of which such military judge is a member.

(c) Ineligibility of Certain Individuals.—No person is eligible to act as military judge in a case of a military commission under this chapter if such person is the accuser or a witness or has acted as investigator or a counsel in the same case.

(d) Consultation With Members; Ineligibility to Vote.—A military judge detailed to a military commission under this chapter may not consult with the members except in the presence of the accused (except as otherwise provided in section 949d of this title), trial counsel, and defense counsel, nor may such military judge vote with the members.

(e) Other Duties.—A commissioned officer who is certified to be qualified for duty as a military judge of a military commission under this chapter may perform such other duties as are assigned to such officer by or with the approval of the Judge Advocate General of the armed force of which such officer is a member or the designee of such Judge Advocate General.

(f) Prohibition on Evaluation of Fitness by Convening Authority.—The convening authority of a military commission under this chapter may not prepare or review any report concerning the effectiveness, fitness, or efficiency of a military judge detailed to the military commission which relates to such judge's performance of duty as a military judge on the military commission.

(Added Pub. L. 111–84, div. A, title XVIII, §1802, Oct. 28, 2009, 123 Stat. 2577.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 948j, added Pub. L. 109–366, §3(a)(1), Oct. 17, 2006, 120 Stat. 2604, related to military judges of military commissions, prior to the general amendment of this chapter by Pub. L. 111–84.
### §2872. General authority

In addition to any other authority provided under this chapter for the acquisition or construction of military family housing or military unaccompanied housing, the Secretary concerned may exercise any authority or any combination of authorities provided under this subchapter in order to provide for the acquisition or construction by eligible entities of the following:

(1) Family housing units on or near military installations within the United States and its territories and possessions.

(2) Military unaccompanied housing units on or near such military installations.

(Added Pub. L. 104–106, div. B, title XXVIII, §2801(a)(1), Feb. 10, 1996, 110 Stat. 545; amended Pub. L. 106–65, div. B, title XXVIII, §2803(b), Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 849.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1999—Pub. L. 106–65 substituted "eligible entities" for "private persons" in introductory provisions.
FSAIC Corrections (IC 18)

Any applicant, who has their Data Release Number (DRN), can make changes to the postsecondary institutions listed on their FAFSA or change their address by calling the Federal Student Aid Information Center (FSAIC). FSAIC submits these changes directly into the Department’s Central Processing System (CPS) for processing.
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

Appeals of - )

)

AECOM Management Services, Inc. ) ASBCA Nos. 62162, 62171, 62172

)

Under Contract No. W74V8H-04-D-0023 )

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT: Terry L. Elling, Esq.

Gregory R. Hallmark, Esq.

 Holland & Knight LLP

 Tysons Corner, VA

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: Arthur M. Taylor, Esq.

 DCMA Chief Trial Attorney

Robert L. Duecaster, Esq.

 Trial Attorney

 Defense Contract Management Agency

 Chantilly, VA

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The dispute has been settled. The appeals are dismissed with prejudice.

Dated: June 29, 2020

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA Nos. 62162, 62171, 62172, Appeals of 

AECOM Management Services, Inc., rendered in conformance with the Board’s Charter.

Dated: June 30, 2020

JOHN J. THRASHER

Administrative Judge

Chairman

Armed Services Board

of Contract Appeals

PAULLA K. GATES-LEWIS

Recorder, Armed Services

Board of Contract Appeals
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 39 (Monday, February 28, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 10945]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4320]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and 
Publications Project Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and 
Publications Project Committee will be conducted. The Taxpayer Advocacy 
Panel is soliciting public comments, ideas and suggestions on improving 
customer service at the Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Tuesday, April 12, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marisa Knispel at 1-888-912-1227 or 
718-488-3557.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Tax Forms and 
Publications Project Committee will be held Tuesday, April 12, 2011, at 
2 p.m., Eastern Time via telephone conference. The public is invited to 
make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. Due 
to limited conference lines, notification of intent to participate must 
be made with Marisa Knispel. For more information, please contact Ms. 
Knispel at 1-888-912-1227 or 718-488-3557, or write TAP Office, 10 
MetroTech Center, 625 Fulton Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201, or post 
comments to the Web site: http://www.improveirs.org.
    The agenda will include various IRS issues.

    Dated: February 18, 2011.
Shawn Collins,
Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
[FR Doc. 2011-4320 Filed 2-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
EX-10.25





 Exhibit 10.25 

 
 



 
 August 21, 2020 
 JASON
BLAISURE 
 CONFIDENTIAL 
 Dear Jason, 

In assuming your new position as Chief Supply Chain Officer, I am very pleased to provide this formal confirmation of the adjustment to your annual base
salary to $450,000 effective August 9, 2020. 
 Effective with the 2020 fiscal year, your bonus potential will remain same at 50% of your salary, pro-rated based on the effective date of your revised salary, and payable in accordance with Chobani’s standard payroll practice, less applicable taxes, deductions and withholdings. 

I look forward to being in-touch in September regarding your additional participation in the Chobani Rewards and
Long-Term Incentive programs, following approval by Hamdi and the Chobani Board. 
 Jason, thank you for your outstanding and tireless commitments to the
Chobani business, our people, culture, team and values. 
  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	/s/ Grace C. Zuncic
	
	Chief People and Culture
	Officer Chobani LLC