alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1156 KA 12-00749 PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CHRISTOPHER T. WALKER, JR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THOMAS J. EOANNOU, BUFFALO (JEREMY D. SCHWARTZ OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL J. VIOLANTE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOCKPORT (LAURA T. BITTNER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Sara S. Sperrazza, J.), rendered May 26, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the first degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted robbery in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.15 [3]), defendant contends that County Court abused its discretion in denying his recusal motion made at sentencing. Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant’s contention survives his valid waiver of the right to appeal ( cf. People v Mahipat , 49 AD3d 1243, 1244), we conclude that it is without merit. The court was not required to recuse itself from sentencing defendant based on the fact that it had presided over the codefendant’s trial ( see People v Bennett , 238 AD2d 898, 899-900, lv denied 90 NY2d 855, 90 NY2d 890, cert denied 524 US 918). “Moreover, none of [the c]ourt’s remarks . . . was indicative of bias against defendant and, therefore, recusal was not warranted on [that] basis” ( People v Casey , 61 AD3d 1011, 1014, lv denied 12 NY3d 913; see People v Johnson , 294 AD2d 908, 908, lv denied 98 NY2d 677). Finally, defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal encompasses his contention concerning the denial of his request for youthful offender status ( see People v Rush , 94 AD3d 1449, 1449, lv denied 19 NY3d 967; People v Farewell , 90 AD3d 1502, 1502, lv denied 18 NY3d 957).

Entered: November 16, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.26



AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO CONTURA ENERGY, INC.
NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION POLICY
 
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 (this “Amendment”), is dated as of January 18, 2017 (the “Effective Date”) and amends that certain Non-Employee Director Compensation Policy (the “Policy”) of Contura Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) effective as of August 1, 2016. Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Policy and the Contura Energy, Inc. Management Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), as applicable.
 
RECITALS
 
WHEREAS, the Board previously adopted the Policy; and
 
WHEREAS, Board deems it in the best interest of the Company to amend the Policy as set forth herein, effective as of the Effective Date.


NOW, THEREFORE, the Board hereby amends the Policy as follows:
     
1.    Section 3 of the Policy is amended and restated in its entirety as follows:  


“3.    Committee Chair Retainers.  Each Eligible Director is entitled to additional annual cash compensation for service as chairperson of the Board or of a committee (the “Chair Compensation”), as set forth in the table below.
	
		
	Position
	Annual Chair Compensation

	Non-Employee Chairman of the Board
	$75,000

	Lead Independent Director if Employee is Chairman of the Board
	$20,000

	Audit Committee Chair
	$20,000

	Safety, Health & Environmental Committee Chair
	$15,000

	Compensation Committee Chair
	$15,000

	Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee Chair
	$10,000






2.    A new Section 7 is hereby added as follows: 


“7.    2016 True-Up Compensation.  Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, each Eligible Director entitled to Chair Compensation as of the Effective Date who became an Eligible Director entitled to Chair Compensation during the period beginning August 1, 2016 and concluding January 17, 2017 will 


-1-


Exhibit 10.26



be entitled to receive an additional amount of compensation (the “True-Up Compensation”) equal to the difference between the Chair Compensation such Eligible Director received prior to the Effective Date and the Chair Compensation such Eligible Director would have been eligible to receive had this Amendment been effective on August 1, 2016. The True-Up Compensation will be paid to any such Eligible Director within 30 days following the Effective Date.” 


3.    This Amendment shall only serve to amend and modify the Policy to the extent specifically provided herein.  All terms, conditions, provisions and references of and to the Policy which are not specifically modified, amended and/or waived herein shall remain in full force and effect and shall not be altered by any provisions herein contained.  All prior agreements, promises, negotiations and representations, either oral or written, relating to the subject matter of this Amendment not expressly set forth in this Amendment are of no force or effect.




-2-
# C_2015398EN.01004202.xml

| 30.11.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 398/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 398/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 October 2015 — Benediktinerabtei St. Bonifaz v OHIM — Andexhser Molkerei Scheitz (Genuß für Leib & Seele KLOSTER Andechs SEIT 1455)

(Case T-78/14) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community figurative mark Genuß für Leib & Seele KLOSTER Andechs SEIT 1455 - Earlier Community figurative mark SEIT 1908 ANDECHSER NATUR and earlier national figurative mark ANDECHSER NATUR - Relative ground of refusal - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2015/C 398/53)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Benediktinerabtei St. Bonifaz Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts (Munich, Germany) (represented by: G. Würtenberger and R. Kunze, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Poch and S. Hanne, lawyers)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court: Andexhser Molkerei Scheitz GmbH (Andechs, Germany) (represented by: S. Jackermeier, lawyer).

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM intervening before the General Court

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 November 2013 (Case R 1272/2012-1) relating to opposition proceedings between Andechser Mokerei Scheitz GmbH and Benediktinerabtei St. Bonifaz Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders Benediktinerabtei St. Bonifaz Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Benediktinerabtei St. Bonifaz Körperschaft des öffentlichen Rechts to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 135, 5.5. 2014.

1

---
#### George Edwards et al. *v.*Hon. Aaron J. Palmer, Judge of the Superior Court

*W. Paul Flynn, George Johnson, L. Scott Melville*and *Theodore I. Koshoff,*in support of the motion.

Submitted November 17

decided November 25, 1969

The motion by the plaintiffs entitled “Motion for Leave to Pile Petition for Writ or Mandamus and/or Petition for Writ of Prohibition” is granted, and the petition annexed thereto is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
§ 582.1355 Helium. ( a ) *Product.* Helium.
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.
#### § 582.80 Trace minerals added to animal feeds.

These substances added to animal feeds as nutritional dietary supplements are generally recognized as safe when added at levels consistent with good feeding practice.[1]

| Element | Source compounds |
| --- | --- |
| Cobalt | Cobalt acetate. |
| | Cobalt carbonate. |
| | Cobalt chloride. |
| | Cobalt oxide. |
| | Cobalt sulfate. |
| Copper | Copper carbonate. |
| | Copper chloride. |
| | Copper gluconate. |
| | Copper hydroxide. |
| | Copper orthophosphate. |
| | Copper oxide. |
| | Copper pyrophosphate. |
| | Copper sulfate. |
| Iodine | Calcium iodate. |
| | Calcium iodobehenate. |
| | Cuprous iodide. |
| | 3,5-Diiodosalicylic acid. |
| | Ethylenediamine dihydroiodide. |
| | Potassium iodate. |
| | Potassium iodide. |
| | Sodium iodate. |
| | Sodium iodide. |
| | Thymol iodide. |
| Iron | Iron ammonium citrate. |
| | Iron carbonate. |
| | Iron chloride. |
| | Iron gluconate. |
| | Iron oxide. |
| | Iron phosphate. |
| | Iron pyrophosphate. |
| | Iron sulfate. |
| | Reduced iron. |
| Manganese | Manganese acetate. |
| | Manganese carbonate. |
| | Manganese citrate (soluble). |
| | Manganese chloride. |
| | Manganese gluconate. |
| | Manganese orthophosphate. |
| | Manganese phosphate (dibasic). |
| | Manganese sulfate. |
| | Manganous oxide. |
| Zinc | Zinc acetate. |
| | Zinc carbonate. |
| | Zinc chloride. |
| | Zinc oxide. |
| | Zinc sulfate. |

###### Footnotes -
  582.80

[1] All substances listed may be in anhydrous or hydrated form.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THERMO POWER
CORPORATION'S QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED APRIL 4, 1998
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-03-1998
<CASH>                                          29,797
<SECURITIES>                                     4,059
<RECEIVABLES>                                   71,154
<ALLOWANCES>                                    13,703
<INVENTORY>                                     42,726
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               148,689
<PP&E>                                          33,518
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,961
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 339,001
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          112,316
<BONDS>                                            333
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,249
<OTHER-SE>                                      64,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   339,001
<SALES>                                        132,116
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               132,116
<CGS>                                           97,058
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   97,058
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,388
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   158
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,061
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,021
<INCOME-TAX>                                       987
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (233)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (233)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)
        

</TABLE>
#### People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John E. Maloney (Impleaded), Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 52,800. (Abstract of Decision.)

First District, Second Division.

May 6, 1969.

Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender of Cook County, of Chicago (Harold A. Cowen, Norman W. Fishman and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant;

Edward V. Hanrahan, State’s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and James B. Haddad, of counsel), for appellee.

Opinion by

JUSTICE McCORMICK.

Not to be published in full.
§ 349.30 Permitted combinations of active ingredients. The following combinations are permitted provided each active ingredient is present within the established concentration, and the product is labeled in accordance with § 349.79. ( a ) Any single ophthalmic astringent active ingredient identified in § 349.10 may be combined with any single ophthalmic vasoconstrictor active ingredient identified in § 349.18.
( b ) Any two or three ophthalmic demulcent active ingredients identified in § 349.12 may be combined.
( c ) Any single ophthalmic demulcent active ingredient identified in § 349.12 or any ophthalmic demulcent combination identified in paragraph (b) of this section may be combined with any single ophthalmic vasoconstrictor identified in § 349.18.
( d ) Any single ophthalmic astringent active ingredient identified in § 349.10 may be combined with any single ophthalmic vasoconstrictor active ingredient identified in § 349.18 and any single ophthalmic demulcent identified in § 349.12 or ophthalmic demulcent combination identified in paragraph (b) of this section.
( e ) Any two or more emollient active ingredients identified in § 349.14 may be combined as necessary to give the product proper consistency for application to the eye.
Filed 2/23/99 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

1999 ND 22

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Jeffrey Clark Vincent, Defendant and Appellant

No. 980185

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Norman J. Backes, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Gordon A. Dexheimer, P.O. Box 342, Fargo, N.D. 58107, for defendant and appellant; submitted on brief.

Jonathan R. Byers, Assistant Attorney General, P.O. Box 1054, Bismarck, N.D. 58502-1054, for plaintiff and appellee.

State v. Vincent

No. 980185

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Jeffrey Vincent appeals from an order revoking his probation and the criminal judgment which remanded him to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations for nine years.  On appeal, Vincent argues the warrantless search conducted under N.D.C.C. § 12.1-32-07(n) lacked "reasonable grounds" and violated his Fourth Amendment rights.

[¶2]We affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).  See State v. Smith, 1999 ND 9, ¶ 9, (holding "search did not violate the Fourth Amendment because 'reasonable suspicion' is not required for a probationary search as long as the search is reasonable"); United States v. Vincent, No. 98-2402, 1999 WL 42249, at *2 (8th Cir. Feb. 1, 1999) (concluding the warrantless probation search of Vincent's home was "reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances").   

[¶3] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

William A. Neumann

Dale V. Sandstrom

Carol Ronning Kapsner

Mary Muehlen Maring
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7669 

To make States ineligible for funding through the State Maternal and Child 

Health Services Block Grant program if the States prohibit a licensed 

physician from performing in vitro fertilization for an individual experiencing medical hardship in conceiving a child, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 13, 2024 

Mrs. LUNA introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To make States ineligible for funding through the State 

Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant program if the States prohibit a licensed physician from 

performing in vitro fertilization for an individual experiencing medical hardship in conceiving a child, and for 

other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Right to Try IVF Act 

5 of 2024’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 7669 IH

1 SEC. 2. NO STATE PROHIBITION OF ACCESS TO IVF BY INDI2 VIDUALS EXPERIENCING MEDICAL HARD3 SHIP IN CONCEIVING A CHILD. 

4 No Federal funds may be made available through the 

5 State Maternal and Child Health Services Block Grant 

6 program under title V of the Social Security Act (42 

7 U.S.C. 701 et seq.) to a State (or any political subdivision 

8 thereof) if the State (or political subdivision) prohibits a 

9 licensed physician from performing the medical procedure 

10 of in vitro fertilization (IVF) for an individual in posses11 sion of a diagnosis by a licensed physician stating that 

12 such individual is experiencing medical hardship in con13 ceiving a child. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
§ 4.100 What is the scope of this subpart? ( a ) This subpart identifies postmarketing safety reporting requirements for combination product applicants and constituent part applicants.
( b ) This subpart does not apply to investigational combination products, combination products that have not received marketing authorization, or to persons other than combination product applicants and constituent part applicants.
( c ) This subpart supplements and does not supersede other provisions of this chapter, including the provisions in parts 314, 600, 606, 803, and 806 of this chapter, unless a regulation explicitly provides otherwise.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1083 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1083

To provide coverage under the Railway Labor Act to employees of certain 
                air and surface transportation entities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 19, 2005

  Mr. Harkin introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
  referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide coverage under the Railway Labor Act to employees of certain 
                air and surface transportation entities.

    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 ``Express Carrier Employee Protection 
Act''.

SEC. 2. AMENDMENT TO THE RAILWAY LABOR ACT.

    Section 201 of the Railway Labor Act (45 U.S.C. 181) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``All'' and inserting ``(a) In General--
        All'';
            (2) by inserting ``and every express carrier'' after 
        ``common carrier by air''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(b) Express Carriers.--The employees of an express carrier shall 
be covered by this Act only if they are licensed airmen, licensed 
aircraft maintenance technicians, or licensed aircraft dispatchers, and 
only if they perform duties for the express carrier pursuant to the 
privileges of the appropriate license. All other employees of an 
express carrier shall be covered by the provisions of the National 
Labor Relations Act.
    ``(c) Definition.--In this section, the term `express carrier' 
means any company (or companies affiliated through common control or 
ownership) that has an integrated network of air and surface 
transportation for the purpose of the express shipment of packages.''.
                                 <all>
```
```

November 13, 2003

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Re: Certification Required Under Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In  connection  with the  accompanying  report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2003, and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), We, Thomas R. Kaetzer, President and CEO of GulfWest
Energy Inc. (the "Company"),  and Richard L. Creel, Vice President of Finance of
the Company hereby certify that:

     1.   The report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2.   The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.

GulfWest Energy Inc.

/s/ Thomas R. Kaetzer
------------------------------------
By: Thomas R. Kaetzer
President and Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Richard L. Creel
------------------------------------
By: Richard L. Creel
Vice President of Finance
```
1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

WASHINGTON, DC

FLIGHTLINE GROUND, INC., d/b/a )

FLIGHTLINE FIRST, )

)

Complainant, )

v. ) DOCKET NO. 16-11-01

)

LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF )

TRANSPORTATION AND )

DEVELOPMENT, AS SUCCESSOR TO )

THE LOUISIANA DIVISION OF )

ADMINISTRATION and THE BOARD )

OF COMMISSIONERS FOR THE )

MANAGEMENT OF THE LAKEFRONT )

AIRPORT; NON-FLOOD PROTECTION )

ASSET MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, )

AS SUCCESSOR TO THE BOARD OF )

COMMISSIONERS OF THE ORLEANS )

PARISH LEVEE DISTRICT and )

ORLEANS PARISH LEVEE DISTRICT, )

DIVISION OF NON-FLOOD ASSETS, )

)

Respondents. )

COMPLAINTANT’S MOTION TO ALTER BRIEFING SCHEDULE

COMES NOW, Flightline Ground, Inc., Complainant in the above-captioned matter, 

pursuant to 14 CFR § 16.19(a) and moves to alter the briefing schedule in this matter based upon 

the following:

1.

The matter was docketed on February 22, 2011. 

2.

In the Notice of Docketing, the Agency declared that the Complainant would have ten 

(10) days after the filing of an answer by Respondents to file a rebuttal. 
2

3.

On March 15, 2010, the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development 

(“DOTD”) filed a motion for extension of time to file answer. 

4.

Enforcing a briefing a schedule while the DOTD has filed a motion seeking a forty-five 

(45) day extension is counterproductive. 

5.

Until such time as the FAA has determined that all of the necessary and proper parties in 

this litigation have been served, the briefing schedule should be stayed. 

WHEREFORE, Complainant prays as follows:

That the briefing schedule set forth in the Notice of Docketing be stayed until such time 

as the Federal Aviation Administration is satisfied that all of the necessary and proper parties in 

this litigation have been served and have appeared in the action and have served responsive 

pleadings.

Respectfully submitted, this 17th day of March, 2011.

s / Alan Armstrong

____________________________________

Alan Armstrong

Georgia Bar No. 022075

Counsel for Complainant

Alan Armstrong Attorney at Law

2900 Chamblee Tucker Road

Building 5, Suite 350

Atlanta, Georgia 30341

P: 770.451.0313

F: 770.451.0317

alan@alanarmstronglaw.com
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that the foregoing Complainant’s Motion to Alter Briefing Schedule has been 

served upon Brandon Brown, Esq., Counsel for the Louisiana Department of Transportation and 

Development via electronic mail at brandon.brown@la.gov and also that a copy of same has been served 

upon Charles Curtis, Esq. by electronic mail at ccurtis@metzgerlawfirm.com, counsel for the Non-Flood 

Protection Asset Management Authority (the “authority”) and also Gerard Metzger, Esq., counsel for the 

authority be electronic mail at gerry@metzgerlawfirm.com.

This the 17th day of March, 2011.

s / Alan Armstrong

________________________________

Alan Armstrong

Alan Armstrong Attorney at Law

2900 Chamblee Tucker Road

Building 5, Suite 350

Atlanta, Georgia 30341