alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Silvia Lefkowitz, Plaintiff, *v.*Carl Lefkowitz, Defendant.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

May 8, 1959.

*Joseph A. D’Addario*for plaintiff.

*Goldstein S Goldstein*for defendant.

Benjamin Breneer, J.

Plaintiff wife moves to punish defendant husband for contempt for failure to make *pendente lite*payments for the support and maintenance of the infant issue. While it is not clear from the papers, it appears that most of *959the arrears of $240 accrued while the plaintiff was out of the State with the child. She was fined $250 for her contemptuous act in removing the child from this jurisdiction, thereby preventing the defendant from exercising his visitation rights. The contempt order provided that the plaintiff could purge herself by returning the child within 48 hours.

The general rule is that a violation by the wife of the visitation clause of a decree or order does not excuse the husband from making payments for the support of the child provided by the decree or order *(Leifer*v. *Leifer,*2 A D 2d 898; *Schweig*v. *Schweig,*122 App. Div. 787; *Goldstein*v. *Goldstein,*134 N. Y. S. 2d 886). An exception to this general rule is found where the wife has permanently removed the child from the State, thus depriving the child and the father of their mutual visitation rights, and in such case the husband cannot be held in contempt for failure to comply with the support provisions of the order or decree *(Goldner*v. *Goldner,*284 App. Div. 961, affd. 309 N. Y. 675; *Goodman*v. *Goodman,*82 N. Y. S. 2d 318; see rationale for such exception discussed by me in *Goodman*v. *Goodman,*17 Misc 2d 712). In the instant situation it is apparent that the plaintiff had taken the child on a vacation trip and did not intend to premanently remove her from this jurisdiction. Hence the exception cannot be here applied and the defendant cannot be excused for his failure to support the infant regardless of his wife’s conduct.

However, the defendant contends that even if he is fined the amount of the arrears, the $250 fine already imposed upon the plaintiff should be set off against any fine that may be imposed upon him. But the plaintiff was given an opportunity to purge herself by returning the child and it is not clear from the papers whether or not she did purge herself by strict or substantial compliance with the terms of the order. In any case, the purge provisions, involving payment by the wife, should not be satisfied by an involuntary set off or deduction from moneys intended for the sole use of the infant. Satisfaction for the wife’s dereliction may be sought through commitment or other appropriate action under the contempt order.

The motion is granted. Defendant is fined $240, the amount of the arrears. He may purge himself of the contempt by payments of $5 per week in addition to the present support payments.

Settle order on notice.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-2034

FERNANDO LIGHTFOOT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

RICHMOND PUBLIC SCHOOLS; DAVID HUDSON, Principal of RPS’s 

Linwood Holton Elementary School; DANA T. BEDDEN, Superintendent-RPS,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

KIMBERLY GRAY, RPS Board Member 2nd District; KRISTEN LARSON, RPS 

Board Member 4th District; DONALD COLEMAN, RSP Board Member 7th 

District; JEFFREY BOURNE, RPS Board Member 3rd District; DERIK JONES, 

RPS Board Member 8th District; GLEN STURTEVANT, RPS Board Member 1st 

District; ANTHONY LEONARD, Executive Director of Elementary Schools, RPS,

 Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:16-cv-00910-REP)

Submitted: April 18, 2018 Decided: July 5, 2018

Before AGEE, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

JeRoyd W. Greene, III, ROBINSON AND GREENE, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. 

Jeremy D. Capps, Melissa Y. York, HARMAN CLAYTOR CORRIGAN & 

WELLMAN, P.C., Glen Allen, Virginia; Christopher S. Dadak, GUYNN & WADDELL, 

P.C., Salem, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Fernando Lightfoot appeals the district court’s orders granting Defendants’ 

motions to dismiss his sexual harassment and retaliation claims, brought pursuant to Title 

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-17 (West 2012 & 

Supp. 2017), and his due process and state law tortious interference with employment 

contract claims. We have reviewed the record and have considered the parties’

arguments and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated 

by the district court. See Lightfoot v. Richmond Pub. Sch., No. 3:16-cv-00910-REP (E.D. 

Va. Aug. 11, 2017). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    HomeExplore the Capitol CampusThe Art Collection
Preservation of Captain Smith by Pocahontas, 1606, Relief Sculpture

One of four relief panels featuring scenes from American colonial history.
        
                  The Basics
      
Artist
      
Antonio Capellano

Materials
    Sandstone

Year
    1825

Location
      
Above the West Door

Capitol Rotunda

Above each of the four Rotunda doors in the U.S. Capitol are scenes from the history of the American Colonies carved in relief into the sandstone walls. The three sculptors who decorated the Rotunda were employed during the rebuilding of the Capitol after the fire of 1814.

Between the historic scenes, decorative panels of wreaths and portraits, also in relief, circle the Rotunda walls. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 28, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 83204]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-26101]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Publication of the Tier 2 Tax Rates

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Publication of the tier 2 tax rates for calendar year 2024 as 
required by section 3241(d) of the Internal Revenue Code. Tier 2 taxes 
on railroad employees, employers, and employee representatives are one 
source of funding for benefits under the Railroad Retirement Act.

DATES: The tier 2 tax rates for calendar year 2024 apply to 
compensation paid in calendar year 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Edmondson, CC:EEE:EOET:ET1, 
Internal Revenue Service, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 
20224, Telephone Number (202) 317-6798 (not a toll-free number).
    Tier 2 Tax Rates: The tier 2 tax rate for 2024 under section 
3201(b) on employees is 4.9 percent of compensation. The tier 2 tax 
rate for 2024 under section 3221(b) on employers is 13.1 percent of 
compensation. The tier 2 tax rate for 2024 under section 3211(b) on 
employee representatives is 13.1 percent of compensation.

Rachel D Levy,
Associate Chief Counsel (Employee Benefits, Exempt Organizations and 
Employment Taxes).
[FR Doc. 2023-26101 Filed 11-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 172 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 172

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                        March 25, 2015.
    Resolved, That the following named Member be, and is hereby, elected to the 
following standing committee of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on Small Business: Mr. Moulton.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 133 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 133

Relating to consideration of the bill (H.R. 240) appropriations for the 
 Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 
                               30, 2015.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 2, 2015

   Mr. King of Iowa (for himself, Mr. Duncan of South Carolina, Mr. 
  Gohmert, Mr. Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Salmon, Mr. Fleming, Mr. 
   Jones, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Rohrabacher, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Rice of South 
Carolina, Mr. Yoho, Mr. Griffith, Mr. LaMalfa, Mr. Olson, Mr. Barletta, 
   Mr. Nugent, Mr. Buck, Mr. Palazzo, and Mr. Sanford) submitted the 
   following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Relating to consideration of the bill (H.R. 240) appropriations for the 
 Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending September 
                               30, 2015.

    Resolved, That any motion pursuant to clause 4 of rule XXII 
relating to the bill H.R. 240 may be offered only by the Majority 
Leader or his designee.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART FIVE

THE UNION'S EXTERNAL ACTION

THE UNION'S EXTERNAL ACTION

TITLE III

COOPERATION WITH THIRD COUNTRIES AND HUMANITARIAN AID

COOPERATION WITH THIRD COUNTRIES AND HUMANITARIAN AID

CHAPTER 1

DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION

Article 211

(ex Article 181 TEC)

(ex Article 181 TEC)

Within their respective spheres of competence, the Union and the Member States shall cooperate with third countries and with the competent international organisations.

---
H. Res. 321 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

June 18, 2015. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to take from the Speaker’s table the bill (H.R. 

2146) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow 

Federal law enforcement officers, firefighters, and air traffic 

controllers to make penalty-free withdrawals from governmental plans after age 50, and for other purposes, with the 

Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the House, 

without intervention of any point of order, a motion offered 

by the chair of the Committee on Ways and Means or his 

designee that the House concur in the Senate amendment 

with the amendment printed in the report of the Committee 

on Rules accompanying this resolution. The Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The motion 

shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled 

by the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee 

on Ways and Means. The previous question shall be consid-
2 

•HRES 321 EH 

ered as ordered on the motion to its adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
25114

#### State v. Shaw

Affirmed
21276

#### O’Connor v. American Intern. Adjustment Co., Inc.

Affirmed
#### In the Matter of the ALASKA BAR ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v. Robert F. MARTIN, Respondent.

No. 2495.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

July 14, 1975.

*517OPINION

ORDER

This case comes before the Supreme Court under the provisions of Rule 16(c) of the Alaska Bar Rules for review of recommendations of the Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar Association that respondent be suspended from the practice of law for a period of sixty months for acts of professional misconduct in violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility.1 We have made an independent review of the record herein and find that there is undisputed evidence of the acts of misconduct charged and that respondent had not appeared before the Trial Committee of the Alaska Bar Association or in this Court to dispute the evidence or to explain his conduct,2 therefore,

By direction of the Court,

It is ordered that the findings and recommendations of the Alaska Bar Association are affirmed and respondent is suspended from the practice of law in the State of Alaska for a period of sixty months commencing from the date of the issuance of the mandate of this Court.3

1

. Respondent was charged and found to have accepted a fee for services he did not perform thus causing a default judgment to he entered against his client in violation of Canon 6 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. Respondent was charged and was found to have converted the sum of $1,675.00 belonging to a client in violation of Canon 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility.

2

. Respondent was served personally with notice of the Trial Committee hearing and the findings of the Trial Committee. Respondent signed a written stipulation permitting the Board of Governors of the Alaska Bar Association to consider the findings without the submission of briefs pursuant to Rule 16(c) of the Alaska Bar Rules. Respondent received notice of the decision of the Alaska Bar Association and notice that the matter would be considered on the record by the Supreme Court unless he filed written mem-oranda.

3

.Any Petition for Reinstatement after the - sixty month period must contain proof that reimbursement of funds wrongfully received has been made.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Pension Partners 1991-A, Ltd.'s balance sheet and statement of operations con-
tained in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 1997 and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         1,274
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  34,605
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               35,879
<PP&E>                                         3,010,090
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (2,383,678)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 662,291
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          172,796
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     489,495
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   662,291
<SALES>                                        42,680
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               42,685
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  24,588<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                6,962
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            6,962
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   6,962
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes lease operating expenses, production taxes and depreciation,
depletion and amortization expense.  Excludes general and administrative and
interest expense.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 10.2


Acknowledgement and Consent


This Acknowledgement and Consent (the "Acknowledgement and Consent") is entered into pursuant to the Employment Agreement (the "Employment Agreement"), dated as of August 18, 2008, by and between Domenick Cama ("Executive") and Investors Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company"), and is effective as of July 9, 2018.


WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of the Employment Agreement, Executive has served as Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company and Investors Bank, the wholly owned subsidiary of the Company (the "Bank"); and


WHEREAS, in accordance with management succession plans approved by the Board in consultation with Executive, effective May 22, 2018, Executive was promoted to the position of President of the Company and the Bank (the "New Position").


NOW, THEREFORE, the Executive hereby consents to and acknowledges the following related to his Employment Agreement:



	
1.

	
Executive hereby consents to serving as President of the Company and the Bank, and agrees and acknowledges that the failure to continue Executive as Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company and the Bank does not constitute a breach of the Employment Agreement.













	
2.

	
Executive acknowledges and agrees that the failure to continue Executive as Senior Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Company and the Bank, and any related changes to Executive's functions, duties and responsibilities, does not constitute an "Event of Termination" for purposes of Section 6 of the Employment Agreement.













	
3.

	
Executive acknowledges that for purposes of the Employment Agreement, the New Position will be his executive position and his responsibilities, duties and responsibilities to Investors will be commensurate with the New Position.












[Signature Page to Follow]
















The parties hereto have signed this Acknowledgment and Consent as of the dates below.







Executive:


/s/ Domenick Cama 


Domenick Cama







Date:  July 9, 2018 







Investors Bancorp, Inc.







By:/s/ Elaine Rizzo 







Title: SVP, Chief Human Resources Officer 







Date: July 9, 2018
Navigate to Homepage
Search
Main navigation
  

        
              Explore the Capitol Campus
                          Art
                            Buildings & Grounds
                            Capitol Hill Facts
                            Visitor Resources
                            Our Blog
                            What We Do
                          Areas of Expertise
                            Programs & Ceremonies
                            Projects
                            Publications
                            Strategic Objectives
                            About Us
                          Who We Are
                            History of the AOC
                            News & Notices
                            Organizational Structure
                            Partnerships & Recognition
                            Work With UsSearch Breadcrumb
    Homecommentreply11796Add new comment
Add new comment
        
                  Bill Wood (not verified)PermalinkFebruary 22, 2022 - 10:33amGreat story, the AoC has always supported career advancement and  provided opportunities for those that seek them out! Fantastic work Arthur!
ReplyYour name
Email Address
        The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Comment
About text formats
Plain text
  
  
      
          No HTML tags allowed.
                      Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
                      Web page addresses and email addresses turn into links automatically. Serve. Preserve. Inspire.

              Contact Us
                            Accountability
                            Hill Staff Resources
                            AOC Staff Resources
Utility
  

        
              Privacy Policy
                            Image Terms of Use
                            Inspector General
                            U.S. Botanic Garden
                            U.S. Capitol Visitor CenterFacebook
	Twitter
	Flickr
	YouTube
	Instagram
	Subscribe
#### State v. Hall

18391

11/12/96

Affirmed
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 2011

- 1163 Directorate Identifier: 2011

-NM

- 022

- AD If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update a ccordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed c ell

. **Estimated Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine, propeller, appliance) Work

- h ours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

cost ( @ $8 5 /h our) Part s Cost T otal Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U

. S

. Fleet
Inspection 1.0 $ 85.00 $0 $ 85.00 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 0 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

**On**
**- Condition Costs:**  Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- hours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$85/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product

Repair 1.0 $ 85.00 $50 $ 135.00 Replacement 4.0 $ 340.00 $200 $ 540.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

### Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES * NO

* Explanation: **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES * NO

* Explanation: **Regulat ory Flexibility Act:**  Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for either a Yes or No answer. YES NO Explanation: **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES * NO

* 

### Explanation :