alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1124

DOUGLASS W. KREHNBRINK; WILLIAM H. KREHNBRINK; DEBRA A. KREHNBRINK, Plaintiffs - Appellants, versus MARYLAND STATE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; EDWARD W. WULKAN; BALTIMORE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS; MAJORIE M. ROFEL; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION; NORMA CANTU; NAMED AND UNNAMED, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-97-1829-WMN) Submitted: July 22, 1998 Decided: August 5, 1998 Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Douglass W. Krehnbrink, William H. Krehnbrink, Debra A. Krehnbrink, Appellants Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Jo Ann Grozuczak Goedert, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland; Leslie Robert Stellman, BLUM, YUMKAS, MAILMAN, GUTMAN & DENICK, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland; Lynne Ann Battaglia, United States Attorney, Larry David Adams, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Douglass W. Krehnbrink, William H. Krehnbrink and Debra A. Krehnbrink appeal the district court’s order dismissing this action brought predominantly pursuant to the civil remedies provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. See 20 U.S.C.A. § 1415(i)(2)(A)(ii) (West Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Krehnbrink v. MD. St. Dep’t of Ed. , No. CA-97-1829-WMN (D. Md. Jan. 16, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EX-10.13



Exhibit 10.13


 
 
 
      
         February 13, 2014
 


 
 
 Mr. James
S. Tisch
 667 Madison Avenue

New York, New York   10065


 
 Dear Mr.
Tisch:
 
 
 Reference is made to your Amended and Restated Employment Agreement with Loews Corporation (the “Company”) dated
February 14, 2012, as amended on February 12, 2013 (the “Employment Agreement”).
 
 

This will confirm our
agreement that the Employment Agreement is amended as follows:
  

1.      Term of
Employment.  The period of your employment under and pursuant to the Employment Agreement is hereby extended for an additional period through and including March 31, 2015 upon all the terms, conditions and provisions of the
Employment Agreement, as hereby amended.
  

2.      
Compensation.  You shall be paid as basic compensation (the “Basic Compensation”) for your services to the Company and its subsidiaries under and pursuant to the
Employment Agreement a salary at the rate of Nine Hundred Seventy-Five Thousand ($975,000) Dollars per annum through March 31, 2015.  Basic Compensation shall be payable in accordance with the Company’s customary payroll practices as
in effect from time to time, and shall be subject to such increases as the Board of Directors of the Company, in its sole discretion, may from time to time determine.
  

3.      
Incentive Compensation Plan.  In addition to receipt of Basic Compensation under the Employment Agreement, you shall participate in the Incentive Compensation Plan for
Executive Officers of the Company (the “Compensation Plan”) and shall be eligible to receive incentive compensation under the Compensation Plan as may be awarded in accordance with its terms.

 
 4.      Other Compensation.  The compensation provided pursuant to this
Letter Agreement shall be exclusive of compensation and fees, if any, to which you may be entitled as an officer or director of a subsidiary of the Company.
 
 

Except as herein
modified or amended, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
 
 
  

   

 
    

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 

Mr. James S. Tisch

February 13, 2014

Page 2
 


 
 
 If the foregoing is in accordance with your understanding, would you please sign the enclosed duplicate copy of this Letter Agreement at the place indicated below and return the same to us for our
records.
 
 
 
 
 
	
     
 	
     
 	 Very truly yours,
 
	  	  	  
	
     
 	
     
 	 LOEWS CORPORATION
 

 
 
 
 
	
     
 	
     
 	  	  
	
     
 	
     
 	  	  
	
     
 	
     
 	 By:
 	 /s/  Gary W. Garson
 
	
     
 	
     
 	  	
      Gary W. Garson
 
	
     
 	
     
 	  	
      Senior Vice President
 
	      

	
     
 	  	
     
 
	 Accepted and Agreed to:
 	
     
 	  	
     
 
	  	
     
 	  	
     
 
	 /s/ James S. Tisch
 	
     
 	  	
     
 
	 James S. Tisch
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ENROLLMENT OPPORTUNITIES UNDER FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES HEALTH BENEFITS
AND
FEDERAL EMPLOYEES GROUP LIFE INSURANCE

| understand that from Ihave only 60 calendar days in which to
TT itraice on Duty dates

enroll in Federal Employees Health Benefits and Federal Employees Group Life Insurance. |
further understand that if | fail to enroll in health insurance that my next opportunity may be
open season and that if | elect not to enroll in life insurance that | will not eligible to reapply for
1 year and will then be required to obtain a physical at my own expense. Enrollment for
Federal Health Insurance takes effect on the first day of the pay period that begins after you

enroll via eZHR self service.

Date Signature

To be filed on the left hand-side of the Official Personnel Folder. If employee fails to make HB of FEGL! election, place on right-hand side.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 175 (Monday, September 10, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 45628]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19567]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Notice of Proposals To Engage in or To Acquire Companies Engaged 
in Permissible Nonbanking Activities

    The companies listed in this notice have given notice under section 
4 of the Bank Holding Company Act (12 U.S.C. 1843) (BHC Act) and 
Regulation Y, (12 CFR part 225) to engage de novo, or to acquire or 
control voting securities or assets of a company, including the 
companies listed below, that engages either directly or through a 
subsidiary or other company, in a nonbanking activity that is listed in 
Sec.  225.28 of Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.28) or that the Board has 
determined by Order to be closely related to banking and permissible 
for bank holding companies. Unless otherwise noted, these activities 
will be conducted throughout the United States.
    Each notice is available for inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank 
indicated. The notice also will be available for inspection at the 
offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their 
views in writing on the question whether the proposal complies with the 
standards of section 4 of the BHC Act.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding the applications must be 
received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of 
Governors not later than September 24, 2018.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago (Colette A. Fried, Assistant 
Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:
    1. West Town Bancorp, Inc., Raleigh, North Carolina; to continue to 
engage in the sale and underwriting of credit-related insurance, 
pursuant to section 225.28(b)(11)(i) of Regulation Y.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, September 5, 
2018.
Ann Misback,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2018-19567 Filed 9-7-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE P
2023667346 * OSTW85-121-XEWCP2 4 01:53:2 0 p.m . 810-111201-02 2

MICHAE L H . MICHAU D

WASHINGTO N OFP!C e 172 4 L<:K'y-wtf' M H\^gst CV'IC E BVUCI^ : W'rH'h^i<it..0C20SI S P'isi. . i:02!22$63C < F M (2a2)»5-294 3 iiWAir.nitt>iau d hoino.tio v 

# (Cumjr^sf

i n f tlii > Unite d0tatc B IQufiliiUQtim , D C 21131 3 Decembe r 1,201 1 VETEIIAN* ' AFFAIM S THANWOMTATIO N AH O iNFRAttitucTiira ; Sjoco-."r i :r. v11 . Hu a 'Aiivi i •v j rr/i.-j Pi/juc : Bu^oiMS * Vi a Eh'ffP'x o M'^*MS»MKr r SHAL L BuaiNn t ENICPN>AtKi-JWSH1 * Th e Honorabl e Ray LaHoo d Secretar y o f Transportatio n U.S . Department

o f Transportatio n 1200 Ne w Jerse y Ave , S E Washington , D.C . 2059 0 Dea r Secretar y LaHood : > e n I wante dt o thank

yo u for you r agency' s commitment

t o ensurin g that

th e carrie r

that i t select s t o provid e replacemen t

essentia l ai r

servic e i n Presqu e Isl e i s abl e t o mee t th e need s o f

th e community . A s you know , ther e ar e concern s that relyin g o n smaller

plane s t o provid e servic e t o Presqu e Isl e coul dhav e adevastatin g effec t o n th e airpor

t andth e region . Smaller

aircraf t woul dhav e to sto p betwee n Presqu e Isl e an dthei r fina l destination , increasin g trave l time s an dopportunitie s fo r delays . Additionally , ther e ar e concern s tha t thes e smalle r

plane s migh t

no t b e appropriat e fo r sever e winter weatiier condition s i n th e region . Individual s an dbusinesse s throughou t northern Main e depen do n th e servic e provide db y th e Northe mMun e Regional Airport . A s th e econom y continue s t o recover , the y canno t affor dt o los e acces s to th e res t

o f th e country . It

i s essential tha

t an y carrie r

providin g essential ai r

servic e t o Presqu e Isl e d o s o safely an defficiently whil e meetin g th e need s o f th e region . I appreciate you r

tim e an dyou r

continue dsuppor

t o f air servic e i n rural areas . I a mconfiden t tha t w e can ensure that

Presqu e Isl e continue s to receiv e th e leve l o f servic e necessary t o mee t it s needs . O : ? 

### =;'o Q o ;

Sincerely , 

# ^U/^^ji ^ Michae l H . Michau d Member o f Congres s

•ANGOK : B.'.w^ , Mir044P 1 s* . tjo'iwa-s'jii f LCWI*T«N : $7 9 L.iMn M ST»ifcT , OwyiNL - F. ; l.«.YifPVN . Ki r0424 0 p>.-» » cnT.ni-iTo i •.r^S»p . PRElOtltlSLC : 44! - L V n ST» ~ r Pwv.t T I n r . M E n4'/>;' l Fi > (7.17 1 764-i:)ll O WATCRVULC i 1 6 Cww s 5t*t.L r W'TciMut . MEM90 1 Pi.c'.i'(207ia7].a7 U F..(2or)a7i.s?i 7
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1



                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
reports, included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed
registration statements on Form S-8, Registration No. 33-75254; Form S-8,
Registration No. 33-75252; Form S-8, Registration No. 33-92656; Form S-8,
Registration No. 333-01978; Form S-8, Registration No. 333-34839; Form S-8,
Registration No. 333-34837; Form S-8, Registration No. 333-81521; Form S-8,
Registration No. 333-81523 and Form S-8, Registration No. 333-89405, relating to
the Company's 1992 Employee Stock Option Plan, 1992 Director Stock Option Plan,
First Amendment to the Employee Plan, Second Amendment to the Employee Plan,
Third Amendment to the Employee Plan, Fourth Amendment to the Employee Plan,
First Amendment to the Director Plan, Second Amendment to the Director Plan and
the Black Box Corporation 1999 Employee Stock Plan, Form S-3, Registration No.
333-48421, Form S-4, Registration No. 333-52937, Form S-4, Registration No.
333-77343, and Form S-4, Registration No. 333-43752.





Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
June 29, 2001
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              JUL-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         913,699
<SECURITIES>                                   909,147
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,559,140
<ALLOWANCES>                                    28,397
<INVENTORY>                                     87,472
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,469,511
<PP&E>                                         814,657
<DEPRECIATION>                                 703,804
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,805,481
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,267,209
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     8,982,842
<OTHER-SE>                                 (6,444,570)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,805,481
<SALES>                                      9,798,630
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,798,630
<CGS>                                        1,373,561
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,615,562
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,975,875
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,246,173
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,246,173
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,246,173
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.10
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 177 (Wednesday, September 12, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46179-46180]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19779]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3399-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2018-0001]


Hawaii; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for 
State of Hawaii (FEMA-3399-EM), dated August 22, 2018, and related 
determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on August 24, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and 
Recovery, Federal Emergency

[[Page 46180]]

Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-
2833.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the 
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Willie G. Nunn, 
of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for 
this emergency.
    This action terminates the appointment of William Roche as Federal 
Coordinating Officer for this emergency.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, 
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster 
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance 
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and 
Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, 
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing 
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially 
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other 
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially 
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2018-19779 Filed 9-11-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-11-P
#### Jack Biderman, Appellant-Respondent, v Judie Biderman, Respondent-Appellant.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.), entered March 23, 1990, which, *inter alia,*denied plaintiff’s motion to modify the support provisions of the judgment of divorce to eliminate alimony to defendant and granted defendant’s motion for leave to enter a judgment for arrears in alimony, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The parties entered into a separation agreement, incorporated into a 1981 Judgment of Divorce, which obligated plaintiff to pay $30,000 in yearly support ($10,000 for each of two children and $10,000 alimony). It was provided therein that any modification of the separation agreement was to be in writing, and that the failure to strictly enforce the agreement would not act as a waiver of either party’s rights thereunder.

Plaintiff stopped making alimony payments on September 1, 1986, claiming that he made payments in excess of what was required by the separation agreement for his children’s higher education and that defendant relinquished her right to these alimony payments by refusing to pay for the children’s education expenses out of the support payments. He also asserted that he was "lulled” into making these extra payments for the children’s education since defendant did not request any arrears in alimony until after the children’s education expenses were covered by plaintiff. Plaintiff also claims that defen*380dant had remarried an unidentified man or held herself out as being married to him. Defendant denies these assertions.

We agree with the IAS court that plaintiff has failed to prove that defendant either intended to relinquish her rights to receive alimony or induced plaintiff into believing that she was waiving those rights by allowing plaintiff to pay the children’s education expenses. The fact that plaintiff paid his children’s education expenses in an amount above that which the separation agreement required him to pay for support did not negate his obligation to pay alimony. *(Cf., Bara v Bara,*130 AD2d 613.) These payments were not a legal obligation of the defendant *(see, West v West,*151 AD2d 475). Moreover, there was no written modification of the separation agreement to indicate such a change in plaintiff’s obligations. Finally, plaintiff’s argument that laches bars defendant’s claim for alimony arrears is meritless as the separation agreement provided that failure to require strict compliance with the agreement would not act as a waiver. Moreover, there is evidence which demonstrates that defendant periodically requested the alimony arrears.

The IAS court’s denial of defendant’s claim for attorneys fees and costs was not an abuse of discretion in the circumstances presented. *(See,*Domestic Relations Law § 238.) Concur —Carro, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin, Smith and Rubin, JJ.
Faulk, Scott (OST) 

' ' . r .A'|-k!LNT o r 

From: Dennis Berry <dberry@esul5.org> ; ^•:^''>f*iiii,yi|>;Cir 

Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 10:37 AM •• i Ji'LH/\i !Ui»: 

To: EAS (OST);'J. Jeff Hancock' 

Subject: McCook, NE i-'l ;^:'?^ - U P 2:0b 

Comments regarding the EAS service at McCook, Ne: The airline has NO incentive to improve service or reduce fares 

because they receive the subsidy regardless. The service has improved recently in that flights in and out of McCook that 

are scheduled have not been dropped as much as in the past. The emplanements would greatly increase if the fares 

were lowered. It is often much cheaper for taxpayers to drive a 450 mile round trip than to fly to or from 

Denver. Somehow the subsidy needs to be based at least in part on emplanements. The airline also does little if any 

marketing for McCook. Again, if half the subsidy was based on emplenements the airline would be used more because 

they would have an incentive to market and have reduced fares which would increase emplanements. This would also 

reduce the per rider average subsidy because emplanements would increase. Dennis Berry, Mayor of McCook
#### In the Matter of William J. Grinker, as Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York, Appellant. Desiree Glover, Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered February 23, 1990, which, inter alia, appointed a conservator of the property of Desiree Glover, unanimously reversed, on the law, to the extent appealed from, the direction that the $1,500 fee for the services of Bonnie R. Cohen, Esq., as guardian ad litem, be paid by the petitioner-appellant is vacated, and in place thereof it is ordered that said fee be paid out of the funds of the conservatee, without costs.

The direction that the fee of the guardian ad litem in this conservatorship proceeding be paid by the Department of Social Services was contrary to the provisions of Mental Hygiene Law § 77.07 (d), which requires that the fee be paid out of the funds of the conservatee where the petition is granted. The fact that the Commissioner of the Department of Social Services has, in the past, voluntarily undertaken to pay the fees of guardians ad litem to the extent of $375 (recently increased to $400), where the proposed conservatee is indigent does not require him to do so absent an express provision of law. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ellerin, Wallach and Kassal, JJ.
February 20, 2013

U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Operations West Building Ground Floor

Room W12-140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20590



### Exemption 6916, Docket No. FAA-2001-8878

Ladies/Gentlemen:

Pursuant to Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR ) §11.61 American Airlines petitions the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an extension of an amendment to Exemption 6916 (Docket No. FAA-2001-8878). This exemption is due to expire July 31, 2013.



### Exemption 6916 provides relief from FAR §121.434(c)(1)(ii) to permit American Airlines to substitute a qualified and au thorized check airman in place of an FAA inspector, to observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC), while that PIC is performing prescribed duties during at least one flight leg, that includes a takeoff and a landing when completing initial or upgrade traini ng, as specified in §121.434.

The conditions and circumstances, in regard to public interest and equivalent level of safety, which warranted the original grant of exemption, continue to exist. This exemp tion has been in use for almost fourteen years with no known compromise of safety.

In accordance with the provisions of FAR §11.87 , “Circumstances in which the FAA may decide not to publish a summary of my petition for exemp tion”, American Airlines requests that a finding of good cause be made for waiving publication in the Federal Register . Since similar extensions have been granted to other Part 121 Air Carriers, no precedents will be set by granting the requested relief. Therefore, American requests that the publication and comment period be waived.

A summary of this petition is attached as require d by FAR §11.81. Please advise if you require any

addition information in order to evaluate or act on this petition.

Sincerely,

Christopher K. Broom Managing Director Flight Training2 Docket FAA-2001-8878

Attachment February 20, 2013

SUMMARY OF AMERICAN AIRLINES PETITION

Petitioner: American Airlines (AAL)

Regulations Affected: FAR § 121.434 (c)(1)(ii).



### Description of Relief Sought: American Airlines requests an extension and amendment of Exemption No. 6916 (Docket No. 29207) which is due to expire on July 31, 2013. This exemption provides relief from FAR §121.434(c)(1)(ii) to permit AAL to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman in place of an FAA inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC) while that PIC is performing prescribed duties during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and a landing when completing initial or upgrade training as specified in §121.424.