alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ami Fuse Liverance, Appellant, v Eric Liverance, Respondent.

[47 NYS3d 713]

Appeal by the plaintiff from an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Charles D. Wood, J.), dated January 6, 2015. The interlocutory judgment, insofar as appealed from, upon a decision of that court dated July 24, 2014, made after a nonjury trial, directed that the plaintiff’s visitation with the parties’ child be supervised.

Ordered that the interlocutory judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Supervised visitation is appropriate only where it is established that unsupervised visitation would be detrimental to the child *(see Matter of Mikell v Bermejo,*139 AD3d 954 [2016]; *Irizarry v Irizarry,*115 AD3d 913 [2014]; *Matter of Bullinger v Costa,*63 AD3d 735, 735-736 [2009]; *Cervera v Bressler,*50 AD3d 837, 839 [2008]; *Rosenberg v Rosenberg,*44 AD3d 1022, 1024 [2007]). The determination of whether visitation should *696be supervised is a matter left to the trial court’s sound discretion, and its findings will not be disturbed on appeal unless they lack a sound and substantial basis in the record (see *Matter of Gooler v Gooler,*107 AD3d 712 [2013]; *Cervera v Bressler,*50 AD3d at 839). Here, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court’s determination that the plaintiff’s unsupervised visitation with the parties’ child would be detrimental to the child was supported by a sound and substantial basis in the record and, thus, will not be disturbed.

Balkin, J.P., Hall, LaSalle and Barros, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of MOCON, Inc. on Form 10-Q forthe quarter ended June 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Darrell B. Lee, ChiefFinancial Officer of MOCON, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that,to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)          The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of MOCON, Inc.

 

 

Date:  August 13, 2010

 
| /s/  Darrell B. Lee      |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| Darrell  B. Lee          |   |
| Chief  Financial Officer |   |

 

----
EXHIBIT

1 1.The cases listed in Delta’s motion are as follows: Cause No. E179234: Delores Preston v. Delta, et al., in the 172 nd Judicial District Court of Jefferson County, Texas Cause No. D018110: Carlton Johnson, Sr. and Gloria L. Johnson v. Delta, et al. , in the 136 th Judicial District Court of Jefferson County, Texas Cause No. E180718: Ivory Pugh and Ressie Pugh v. Delta, et al. , in the 172 nd District Court of Jefferson County, Texas Cause No. B179701: Lino Zamudio and Maria Zamudio v. Delta, et al. , in the 60 th Judicial District Court of Jefferson County, Texas 2.The cases listed in Southeast’s are as follows: Cause No. B-060,401-C: Branden Welch v. Ranchers and Farmers Insurance Company ; in the 163 rd Judicial District Court of Orange County, Texas Cause No. 27,582: Edwin Bush and Charlotte Bush v. Ranchers and Farmers Insurance Company ; in the 1 st District Court of Jasper County, Texas Cause No. 48207: Terry Garrett and Stephanie Garrett v. Ranchers and Farmers Mutual Insurance Company, and Southeast Surplus Underwriters General Agency, Inc. ; in the 88 th Judicial District Court of Hardin County, Texas Cause No. B-070311-C: Jesse Don Fredeck v. Ranchers and Farmers Mutual Insurance Company, Southeast Surplus Underwriters General Agency, Inc. and Mark Lindoerfer ; in the 163 rd Judicial District Court of Orange County, Texas Cause No. D-070369-C: Jimmy Wilson and Olivia Wilson v. Ranchers and Farmers Insurance Company, Southeast Surplus Underwriters General Agency, Inc., Prestige Claims Services, Inc., Mark Anderson and Mark Lindoerfer ; in the 260 th Judicial District Court of Orange County, Texas Cause No. B-070638-C: Billy Burnett and Joan Burnett v. Ranchers and Farmers Mutual Insurance Company, Southeast Surplus Underwriters General Agency, Inc., Mark Lindoerfer and Charlie Vaughn , in the 163 rd Judicial District of Orange County, TexasEXHIBIT

2 Cause No. 48133: Wesley Young and Amie Young v. Ranchers and Farmers Mutual Insurance Company, Southeast Surplus Underwriters General Agency, John T. Parker Claims Service and Chris Ruble , in the 88 th Judicial District Court of Hardin County, Texas Cause No. 47809: Randy Duplecion and Bobbie “Marcie” Duplecion v. Southeast Surplus Underwriters General Agency, Inc., Ranchers and Farmers Mutual Insurance Company, Prestige Claims Services, Inc., Mark Anderson and Mark Lindoerfer ; in the 88 th Judicial District Court of Hardin County, Texas Cause No. D-060-363-C: Julie Chisolm and Alan Mesecher v. Ranchers and Farmers Insurance Company ; in the 260 th Judicial District Court of Orange County, Texas Cause No. D-060-362-C: Julie Chisolm and Alan Mesecher v. Ranchers and Farmers Insurance Company ; in the 163 rd Judicial District Court of Orange County, Texas Cause No. D-060-369-C: Julie Chisolm and Alan Mesecher v. Ranchers and Farmers Insurance Company ; in the 260 th Judicial District Court of Orange County, Texas Cause No. D-060-361-C: Julie Chisolm and Alan Mesecher v. Ranchers and Farmers Insurance Company ; in the 128 th Judicial District Court of Orange County, Texas
#### Freeman-Rhodes v. Swanger

10/27/2015

188 WAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 121 A.3d 1135
No. 12-8192.

#### Shahideh *v.*McKee, Warden.

C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Fourth Amendment


 EXHIBIT 10.57(e) 
  
 FOURTH AMENDMENT 
 TO 
 AGREEMENT OF PURCHASE AND SALE (with Escrow Instructions) AND 
 LEASEBACK 
  
 Amendment made as of this 31st day of
August, 2004 by and between THE PRICE GROUP, LLC, a California limited liability company (referred to herein as “Purchaser”) and PRICESMART, INC., a Delaware corporation, as agent for and on behalf of its wholly-owned
(through a subsidiary company) subsidiary Inmobiliaria PriceSmart, S.A., a Dominican Republic company (referred to herein as “Seller”) 
  
 Recitals 
  
 A) Purchaser and Seller are parties to an Agreement of Purchase and Sale (with Escrow Instructions) and Leaseback dated May 6, 2004 as amended by a letter dated May 20, 2004 a Second Amendment dated June 1, 2004 and a
Third Amendment dated July 12, 2004 (collectively the “Agreement”) 
  
 B) Purchaser and Seller wish to further amend the Agreement as provided herein. 
  
 NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree that the Agreement is amended as follows: 
  
 1. All words and terms used herein shall have the same meaning as in the Agreement unless otherwise specified. 
  
 2. The time period for either Purchaser or Seller to terminate the Agreement, under Section
1.04(C) of the Agreement, is hereby extended up to and including November 30, 2004. 
  
 3. Section 2.03(B) is amended and restated in its entirety as follows: 
  
 “No later than November 30, 2004 the Boards of Directors of PriceSmart, Inc., and Inmobiliaria PriceSmart, S.A. and/or an authorized
Committee of such Boards, have approved the final terms and conditions of the sale to Purchaser of the Subject Property under this Agreement.” 
  
 4. Subject to the amendments herein the Agreement remains in full force and effect. 
  
 Executed on the date first written above. 
  

							
	 PURCHASER

	 	 SELLER


		
	The Price Group, LLC	 	 PriceSmart, Inc., as Agent on behalf of its
 wholly-owned subsidiary PriceSmart
 Inmobiliaria, S.A.

				
	 by
	 	 /s/ Jim Cahill

	 	 by
	 	 /s/ Robert M. Gans


	 	 	 its Manager
	 	 	 	 its Executive Vice President
# Disposition Services director provides end of year message and safety brief to workforce

/ Published Dec. 7, 2021
BATTLE CREEK, Mich. , 
Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services Director Mike Cannon provided a virtual safety briefing in conjunction with Safety and Occupational Health Manager Bill Cohoe.

Prior to the briefing, Cannon addressed the workforce, recapping the year’s successes and recognizing them for their unwavering commitment to the Warfighter and our customers.

He concluded the presentation by encouraging everyone to be safe, stay healthy and return refreshed for a fruitful 2022.  

07:06VIDEO  | 07:06 |Disposition Services Director's Holiday Message 2021
161 A.3d 762

#### SHORE COMMUNITY BANK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. TONY GERARD ASSOCIATES LLC, ANTHONY G. PALMA, PATRICIA A. PALMA, AND CONTEMPALONIAL ENTERPRISES, INC. T/A/ C.E.I., DEFENDANTS-PETITIONERS.

March 9, 2017

ON PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION

To the Appellate Division, Superior Court:

A petition for certification of the judgment in [ A-XXXXXX-XX ] having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same;

It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is denied, with costs.
No. 09-11562.

#### Steven Fion Lyons, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 888, 131 S. Ct. 221,

178 L. Ed. 2d 133,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6788.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 371 Fed. Appx. 365.
161 A.3d 767

#### NEW JERSEY DIVISION OF CHILD PROTECTION AND PERMANENCY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. A.B., DEFENDANT-MOVANT. IN THE MATTER OF A.F., MINOR-RESPONDENT.

March 9, 2017

ORDER

It is ORDERED that the motion to strike is granted in part, only as to the references to the lab screen reports and the psychologist’s opinion.
#### Com. v. Peoples

04/12/2016

875 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 134 A.3d 110
2017-0455.

#### State v. Howard.

Richland App. No. 15CA26, 2016-Ohio-4786. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
# L_2022321DE.01007401.xml

| 15.12.2022 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 321/74 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.12.2022

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 321/74

---

Berichtigung des Beschlusses 2011/235/GASP des Rates vom 12. April 2011 über restriktive Maßnahmen gegen bestimmte Personen und Organisationen angesichts der Lage in Iran

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 100 vom 14. April 2011
  )

| 1. | Seite 52, Artikel 2 Absatz 2 |
| --- | --- |

1.

Seite 52, Artikel 2 Absatz 2

Anstatt:

„Den in der Liste im Anhang aufgeführten Personen dürfen weder unmittelbar noch mittelbar Gelder oder wirtschaftliche Ressourcen zur Verfügung gestellt werden oder zugute kommen.“

muss es heißen:

„Den in der Liste im Anhang aufgeführten Personen und Organisationen dürfen weder unmittelbar noch mittelbar Gelder oder wirtschaftliche Ressourcen zur Verfügung gestellt werden oder zugute kommen.“

| 2. | Seite 54, Anhang, Titel |
| --- | --- |

2.

Seite 54, Anhang, Titel

Anstatt:

„Liste der Personen und Körperschaften nach den Artikeln 1 und 2“

muss es heißen:

„Liste der Personen und Organisation nach den Artikeln 1 und 2“.

---
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 107 (Thursday, June 4, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 30521]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-14771]



[[Page 30521]]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Renewal Notice

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

ACTION: Notice of renewal of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste 
for a period of two years.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has 
determined that renewal of the Charter for the Advisory Committee on 
Nuclear Waste for the two year period commencing on May 29, 1998, is in 
the public interest in connection with duties imposed on the Commission 
by law. This action is being taken in accordance with the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act after consultation with the Committee Management 
Secretariat, General Services Administration.
    The purpose of the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste is to 
provide advice to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on 
nuclear waste disposal facilities, as directed by the Commission. This 
includes 10 CFR parts 60 and 61 and other applicable regulations and 
legislative mandates. In performing its work, the Committee will 
examine and report on those areas of concern referred to it by the 
Commission and may undertake studies and activities on its own 
initiative, as appropriate. Emphasis will be on protecting the public 
health and safety in the disposal of nuclear waste. The Committee will 
interact with representatives of NRC, ACRS, other federal agencies, 
state and local agencies, Indian Tribes, and private, international and 
other organizations as appropriate to fulfill its responsibilities.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT: John T. Larkins, Executive 
Director of the Committee, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 415-7360.

    Dated: May 29, 1998.
Andrew L. Bates,
Federal Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 98-14771 Filed 6-3-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
#### Bassett v. Lamantia, et al.

OP 17-0322

06/06/17

Yes

Original Proceeding Certified Question
#### In the Matter of Liquidation of Midland Ins. Co. Northern States Power Company, Appellant, v Maria T. Vullo, Superintendent of Financial Services of the State of New York, as Liquidator of Midland Insurance Company, Respondent.

[61 NYS3d 485]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael D. Stall-man, J.), entered July 13, 2016, which confirmed the report of a Referee, dated December 10, 2015, disallowing claimant from asserting certain excess insurance claims in the New York liquidation proceeding for Midland Insurance Company because the issues have already been fully litigated in a previous action in Minnesota, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Supreme Court and the Referee properly found that the subject claims are barred by res judicata and collateral estop-pel, based on prior rulings in Minnesota on the same claims and issues *(see Spectris Inc. v 1997 Milton B. Hollander Family Trust,*138 AD3d 626 [1st Dept 2016]; *Bruno v Bruno,*83 AD3d 165 [1st Dept 2011], *lv denied*18 NY3d 805 [2012]; *Hauschildt v Beckingham,*686 NW2d 829, 840 [Minn 2004]).

We have considered claimant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Renwick, Andrias, Singh and Moulton, JJ.
# Cyber hygiene involves many people, tasks

/ Published Oct. 27, 2020
FORT BELVOIR, Va., 
Defense Logistics Agency employees practice cyber hygiene daily by using security software and strong passwords to protect computers and networks. DLA Information Operations’ Cybersecurity Vulnerability Management Team has also spent the past two years working with technical experts and partners throughout the agency to improve, track and maintain the cyber hygiene for DLA’s 19 mission critical systems.

"The Cyber Hygiene Program has brought together key players from across all of DLA Information Operations into a collaborative environment where problems and issues can be discussed openly to ensure the protection of all DLA's cyberspace assets. As a result, remediation timelines have been drastically reduced, which has hardened our defense against malicious threats,” said Josh Boisvert, team lead.

The team began by compiling information for all 19 systems located on internal DLA servers and in the cloud. The team then gathered weekly vulnerability scans highlighting security weaknesses and merged them into a comprehensive report on various cybersecurity issues. The report includes the Cyber Hygiene Score, a point system based on the severity and number of findings on the systems associated with each application. Reports are used to identify and prioritize the most urgent vulnerabilities and used as a reference during weekly meetings between project managers, information systems managers, technical experts and managers throughout DLA Information Operations.

“Targeting patching requirements has enabled the agency to operate in a secure environment and ensured availability during this mass telework event,” Boisvert said.

What began as a team of nine members has expanded to over 100 participants from every area of DLA Information Operations.

“This collaborative environment has done more for vulnerability management within DLA than anything else I have seen to-date,” Boisvert said, adding that cyber threats to DLA systems are real.

“The Cyber Hygiene Program reduces the attack surface of DLA’s assets and takes opportunities away from our adversaries to disrupt our mission,” he said.
Exhibit        10.2

 

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements        of Elbit Systems Ltd. on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 333-9354 and 333-139512) of our report dated        March 10, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Elisra Electronic        Systems Ltd. and subsidiaries, which report appears in this December 31, 2007 annual report        on Form 20-F of Elbit Systems Ltd.

 

 

| By: | /s/ Somekh Chaikin                                     |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------|
|     | Somekh Chaikin                                         |
|     | Certified Public Accountants                    (Isr.) |
|     | A member firm of KPMG                    International |

         

         

         

 

 

Tel-Aviv, Israel,

May 27,        2008
ALASKA SEAFOOD CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE 

EPA-HQ-OW-2013-0652

DCN: 00061CBI

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.
Exhibit 99(b)

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of ALLTEL Corporation(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, JefferyR. Gardner, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  1350, as adopted pursuant to  906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:

          (1) The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

          (2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ Jeffery R. Gardner

Jeffery R. GardnerSenior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerAugust 12, 2002
164 A.3d 412

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. TODD DORN, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

March 29, 2017

ON PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION

To the Appellate Division, Superior Court:

A petition for certification of the judgment in [ A-XXXXXX-XX ] having been submitted to this Court, and the Court having considered the same;

*623It is ORDERED that the petition for certification is granted limited to the following issues: 1) whether the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a map identifying areas within 500 feet of public parks and buildings; and 2) whether defendant’s right to a grand jury indictment was violated when the trial court permitted the prosecutor to amend the indictment to expose defendant to greater criminal liability; and it is further

ORDERED that the appellant may serve and file a supplemental brief on or before May 30, 2017, and respondent may serve and file a supplemental brief forty-five (45) days after the filing of appellant’s supplemental submission, or, if appellant declines to file such a submission, on or before July 14, 2017.
EX-10.3



 







Exhibit 10.3







CA, Inc.

Restricted Stock Award Certificate




	 	 	 	 	 
	 

Name of Participant

	 	 

EmplID
	 	 






	 	 	 
	Grant Number

	 	RS
	Total Number of Restricted Stock Awards Granted
	 	 
	Grant Date
	 	 
	Stock Price on Grant Date

	 	 $





This Certificate confirms the grant under the CA, Inc. 2002 Incentive Plan, amended and restated
effective as of May 20, 2005 (the “Plan”), to the above-named participant of the amount of
Restricted Stock set forth above. This Certificate merely evidences such grant, and does not
constitute property of any nature or type or confer any additional rights. This grant is subject
in all respects to the applicable terms of the Plan, which are incorporated by reference in this
Certificate. A copy of the Plan may be obtained at no cost by contacting the Corporate Treasurer.



This Restricted Stock award will vest [INSERT VESTING SCHEDULE] on [INSERT VESTING DATE(S)].
Shares of Restricted Stock that are included in this award may not be transferred by the
participant prior to vesting and shall be forfeited by the participant upon the participant’s
Termination of Employment, as defined in the Plan, prior to vesting for any reason other than
death or Disability, as defined in the Plan.



The Company may satisfy any federal income tax withholding obligations that arise in connection
with the vesting of the Restricted Stock (or in connection with an election by the participant
under section 83(b) of the Internal Revenue Code, 1986, as amended, with respect to the Restricted
Stock) by withholding shares of Restricted Stock that are part of this award having a Fair Market
Value, as defined in the Plan, on the date the shares of Restricted Stock first become taxable
equal to the minimum statutory withholding obligation with respect to such taxable shares.




	 	 	 	 	 
	By