alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AMENDMENT NO. 6 TO MODACAD, INC.
                             1995 STOCK OPTION PLAN

The text of Section  8(d)(ii)  ("Termination  of Status as an  Employee") of the
ModaCAD,  Inc. 1995 Stock Option Plan, as previously  amended by Amendment No. 1
dated November 26,  1996;  Amendment No. 2 dated June 10,  1997; Amendment No. 3
dated  April 8,  1998;  Amendment No. 4 dated July 2,  1998; and Amendment No. 5
dated July 16,  1999 (as so amended,  the "Plan"),  is hereby amended to read in
its entirety as follows:

          (ii)  Termination of Status as an Employee.  If an Optionee  ceases to
          serve as an Employee or a consultant  for any reason other than death,
          Disability or Termination for Cause, and thereby terminates his or her
          Continuous  Employment with the Company or status as a consultant,  to
          the extent that such  Optionee  was entitled to exercise the Option at
          the date of such  termination,  such Optionee  shall have the right to
          exercise the Option at any time within 90 days  subsequent to the last
          day of such  Optionee's  Continuous  Employment  with the  Company  or
          status as a consultant (unless at any time prior to the termination of
          Continuous  Employment,  the Board  specifies a longer period,  not to
          exceed the term of the Option set forth in the Option  Agreement).  To
          the extent that such  Optionee was not entitled to exercise the Option
          at the date of the  terminating  event,  or if such  Optionee does not
          exercise  such Option  (which such  Optionee was entitled to exercise)
          within the time specified herein,  the Option shall terminate.  In the
          event that any Optionee's  Continuous  Employment  with the Company or
          status as a consultant  terminates due to death or Disability,  to the
          extent that such  Optionee  was entitled to exercise the Option at the
          date of such termination,  the Option may be exercised any time within
          180 days subsequent to the death or Disability of the Optionee (unless
          at any time prior to the  termination  of Continuous  Employment,  the
          Board specifies a longer period,  not to exceed the term of the Option
          set forth in the Option  Agreement).  To the extent that such Optionee
          was not  entitled  to  exercise  such Option at the date of his or her
          termination  due to  death or  Disability,  or if such  Option  is not
          exercised  (to the  extent  it could  be  exercised)  within  the time
          specified  herein,  the  Option  shall  terminate.  If  an  Optionee's
          Continuous  Employment  with the  Company  or status  as a  consultant
          terminates due to his or her Termination for Cause,  his or her Option
          shall  terminate as of the date of such  Termination  for Cause to the
          extent not exercised as of such date.


Dated: October 26, 1999
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the matter of the Estate of * From the County Court

Esther Abell Denton, deceased, of Midland County,

Trial Court No. P14779

No. 11-21-00194-CV * January 26, 2023

* Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal 

should be dismissed for want of prosecution. Therefore, in accordance with this 

court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed. The costs incurred by reason of this 

appeal are taxed against Douglas A. Denton.
#### § 32.53-30 Positive pressure—T/ALL.

Each inert gas system must be designed to enable the operator to maintain a gas pressure of 100 millimeters (4 inches) of water on filled cargo tanks and during loading and unloading of cargo tanks.

[USCG-2003-16630, 73 FR 65160, Oct. 31, 2008]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF PLANET HOLLYWOOD INTERNATIONAL, INC. FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
ENDED DECEMBER 27, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                              1,000
       
<S>                           <C>  
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-27-1998
<PERIOD-START>                      DEC-29-1997
<PERIOD-END>                        DEC-27-1998
<CASH>                                   45,426
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                            18,862
<ALLOWANCES>                             (2,122)
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         99,931
<PP&E>                                  332,366 
<DEPRECIATION>                          (51,251)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          472,627
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    90,109
<BONDS>                                 254,420
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                  1,092
<OTHER-SE>                              103,468
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            472,627
<SALES>                                 367,296
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        386,974
<CGS>                                   110,874
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           587,719
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       25,822
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (232,742)
<INCOME-TAX>                              5,206
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (237,948)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                 5,984
<NET-INCOME>                           (243,932)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                             (2.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                             (2.23)
        

</TABLE>
#### William A. Lottimer, as *Executor, etc., Appellant, v.*Jane C. Blumenthal, *Respondent,*and others Appellants.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to all parties out of the fund. Opinion by

Davis, P. J.
# C_2012331EN.01002103.xml

| 27.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 September 2012 — Reddig v OHIM — Morleys (Knife handle)

(Case T-164/11) (1)

(Community trade mark - Proceedings for invalidity - Three-dimensional Community trade mark - Knife handle - Absolute ground for refusal - Sign constituted exclusively by the shape of the product necessary for obtaining a technical result - Article 7(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Declaration of invalidity by the Board of Appeal)

(2012/C 331/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Reddig GmbH (Drebber, Germany) (represented by: C. Thomas, lawyer)

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Morleys Ltd (Preston, United Kingdom) (represented by: A. Stein and M. Terbach, lawyers, and E. Gunaratnam, Solicitor)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 December 2010 (Case R 1072/2009-2), concerning invalidity proceedings between Morleys Ltd and Reddig GmbH.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Reddig GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Reddig GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

LAURANN BEDEN, 

 

 Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 

 14-CV-14727 

vs. 

 HON. MARK A. GOLDSMITH 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY, 

 

 Defendant. 

_______________________________/ 

ORDER 

(1) ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF 

THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE DATED SEPTEMBER 18, 2015 (Dkt. 15), (2) DENYING 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Dkt. 13), AND 

(3) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Dkt. 14) 

This matter is presently before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (R&R) 

of Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris, issued on September 18, 2015. In the R&R, the 

Magistrate Judge recommends that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be denied, and 

that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment be granted. The parties have not filed 

objections to the R&R, and the time to do so has expired. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The 

Court has reviewed the R&R and concludes that the Magistrate Judge has reached the proper 

conclusion for the proper reasons. Therefore, the R&R is accepted and adopted as the 

findings and conclusions of the Court. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for summary 

judgment (Dkt. 13) is denied, and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 14) is 

granted. 

SO ORDERED. 

 s/Mark A. Goldsmith 

Dated: October 13, 2015 MARK A. GOLDSMITH 

 Detroit, Michigan UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

2:14-cv-14727-MAG-PTM Doc # 16 Filed 10/13/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 603
2 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record 

and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to their respective email or First 

Class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on October 13, 2015. 

s/Johnetta M. Curry-Williams 

CASE MANAGER 

2:14-cv-14727-MAG-PTM Doc # 16 Filed 10/13/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 604
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2325 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2325

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 1300 Matamoros Street in Laredo, Texas, as the ``Laredo Veterans 
                             Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2009

 Mr. Cuellar (for himself, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Gene Green of 
 Texas, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Edwards of Texas, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. McCaul, 
 Mr. Al Green of Texas, Mr. Doggett, Mr. Sessions, Mr. Brady of Texas, 
 Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson of Texas, Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr. Culberson, 
Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, Mr. Reyes, Mr. Poe of Texas, Mr. Thornberry, 
Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Olson, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Carter, Mr. Sam Johnson 
  of Texas, Mr. Conaway, Mr. Marchant, Ms. Granger, and Mr. Smith of 
    Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 1300 Matamoros Street in Laredo, Texas, as the ``Laredo Veterans 
                             Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. LAREDO VETERANS POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1300 Matamoros Street in Laredo, Texas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Laredo Veterans Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Laredo 
Veterans Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
the September 30, 1999 unaudited financial statements 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>                                     59,023,000
<SECURITIES>                                9,977,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               6,288,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                (475,000)
<INVENTORY>                                   596,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           77,872,000
<PP&E>                                     96,956,000
<DEPRECIATION>                           (11,980,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            171,171,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      29,402,000
<BONDS>                                   150,038,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                48,876,000
<COMMON>                                       18,000
<OTHER-SE>                               (66,857,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              170,171,000
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           67,280,000
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              35,245,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          (1,825,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               75,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         13,234,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            20,551,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                9,725,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        10,826,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                               10,826,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.41


</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

LASANDRA HILLSON, 

STEVEN BOHLER and 

ASHLEY SCHMIDT, 

 

 Plaintiffs, 

 Case No. 2:15-CV-10803 

v. Judge Laurie J. Michelson 

 Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti 

KELLY SERVICES, INC., 

 

 Defendant. 

___________________________________/ 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY ALL 

PROCEEDINGS (DE 18) and STAYING CASE 

For the reasons stated on the record in the Court’s oral opinion of this date, 

including its analysis of all of the factors discussed in Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 

U.S. 248, 255 (1936), Defendant’s motion to stay all proceedings is GRANTED, 

and the case is STAYED until such time as the United States Supreme Court 

issues a written opinion on the merits in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339. The 

Court finds that a stay is warranted, inter alia, because Spokeo has the high 

potential to be completely dispositive of the instant case1

 and because judicial 

                                                            

1 See, Michael v. Ghee, 325 F. Supp.2d 829, 831-832 (N.D. Ohio 2004). 

2:15-cv-10803-LJM-APP Doc # 29 Filed 07/15/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 401
economy favors a limited delay in awaiting the Spokeo decision.2

 In addition and 

alternatively, even in the absence of dispositive motion practice, the Supreme 

Court’s ruling in Spokeo has the high potential to directly impact this Court’s 

anticipated class certification ruling, because it would appear to bear upon the issue 

of whether the proposed class members have Article III standing under the Fair 

Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. §1681, et. seq.3

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 15, 2015 s/Anthony P. Patti 

 Anthony P. Patti 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

I hereby certified that a copy of the foregoing document was sent to parties of 

record on July 15, 2015, electronically and/or by U.S. Mail. 

 s/ Michael Williams 

 Case Manager for the 

 Honorable Anthony P. Patti 

                                                            

2 See, Michael, 325 F.Supp.2d at 833; see also, Beydoun v. Holder, No. 14-cv13812, 2015 WL 631948, *3-*4 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 13, 2015) (Levy, J.) (opinion 

and order granting defendants’ motion to stay). 

3 See, Ramirez v. Trans Union, LLC, No. 3:12-cv-00632-JSC, *2 (N.D. Cal. June 

22, 2015) (Corley, M.J.) (order granting motion to stay action) (DE 25-1). 

2:15-cv-10803-LJM-APP Doc # 29 Filed 07/15/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 402
Argued and submitted September 13, 1995,

reversed and remanded February 21, 1996

#### Jerry Michael FISHER, *Petitioner, v.*EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT and Adult and Family Services Division, *Respondents.*

(94-AB-1358; CA A85035)

911 P2d 975

Jorge Lara argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Marion-Polk Legal Aid Service, Inc.

Janie Burcart, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondents. With her on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Armstrong, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*321PER CURIAM

Claimant seeks review of an order of the Employment Appeals Board (Board) denying him unemployment benefits on the ground that he voluntarily left work without good cause. ORS 657.176(2)(c); OAR 471-30-038(4). The Board held that claimant did not prove that he had a reasonable alternative to quitting work because “nothing in the record suggests that the union lacked authority to address the inappropriate conduct of the lead worker and the employer’s failure to effectively put a stop to that conduct.” However, we can find nothing in the record from which it can be inferred that the union had the authority to address claimant’s difficulties with his lead worker. As we said in *Bremer v. Employment*Division, 47 Or App 1131, 615 P2d 1170 (1980):

> “Before the Board may hold that a claimant has failed to consider ‘reasonable alternatives’ to leaving work, it must be found that there were such alternatives. Without such a finding, the Board’s conclusion is not supported by its own findings.” *Id.*at 1137.

In the absence of any finding of fact that the union had the authority to intervene on claimant’s behalf, the Board’s opinion suffers from the same defect as in *Bremer.*

Reversed and remanded.
# C_2011340EN.01002401.xml

| 19.11.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 340/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.11.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 340/24

---

Order of the General Court of 23 September 2011 — Bro Grébé v Council

(Case T-194/11) (1)

1

(Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures taken with regard to the situation in Côte d'Ivoire - Action for annulment - Inaction of the applicant - No need to adjudicate)

2011/C 340/50

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Geneviève Bro Grébé (Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire) (represented by: J.-C. Tchikaya, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and M. Chavrier, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment, firstly, of Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011, amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d'Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 36) and, secondly, of Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011, amending Council Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 of 12 April 2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d'Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 1), in so far as those acts concern the applicant.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no further need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no further need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Ms Geneviève Bro Grébé shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms Geneviève Bro Grébé shall pay the costs.

| 3. | There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene of the European Commission and the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire. |
| --- | --- |

3.

There is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene of the European Commission and the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire.

---

(1)  OJ C 152, 21.5.2011.

1

---
# C_2012089EN.01001101.xml

| 24.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/11

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’Etat (France) lodged on 29 December 2011 — SNC Doux Élevage and Société Coopérative Agricole UKL-ARREE v Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’alimentation, de la pêche, de la ruralité et de l'aménagement du territoire and Comité interprofessionnel de la dinde française (CIDEF)

(Case C-677/11)

2012/C 89/16

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Referring court

Conseil d’Etat, France

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: SNC Doux Élevage, Société Coopérative Agricole UKL-ARREE

Applicants:

Defendants: Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’alimentation, de la pêche, de la ruralité et de l’aménagement du territoire, Comité interprofessionnel de la dinde française (CIDEF)

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

Must Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, read in the light of Case C-345/02 Pearle BV and Others, be interpreted as meaning that a decision by which a national authority extends to all the traders in a sector an agreement which, like the agreement made within the Comité interprofessionnel de la dinde française (CIDEF), introduces the levying of a contribution in an inter-trade organisation recognised by that national authority, thus rendering that contribution compulsory, in order to make it possible to implement certain activities — publicity activities, promotional activities, external relations activities, quality assurance activities, research activities, activities in defence of the sector’s interests, and the use of studies and consumer panels — is, in view of the nature of the activities in question, the methods by which they are financed and the conditions of their implementation, related to State aid?

Pearle BV and Others

---
#### The People of the State of New *York ex rel.*James Mulvey, Appellant, *v.*The Board of Police Commissioners of the City of New York, *Respondents*.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion

*Per Gwria/m.*
§ 190.10-40 Access to lifeboats. ( a ) The stairways, corridors, and doors shall be so arranged as to permit a ready and direct access to the various lifeboat and liferaft embarkation areas.