alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# National Disability Awareness Month Spotlight: Arthur Everette II

/ Published Oct. 29, 2019
FORT BELVOIR, Virginia, 
***Editor’s Note: The Defense Logistics Agency recognizes National Disability Awareness Month throughout October. To honor the contributions of employees with disabilities, DLA is highlighting those who work daily to support the agency’s global mission.***

**My name is:** Arthur Everette II        

**Job Title:**Contract specialist for DLA Energy’s Utilities Privatization Division

**Describe your job in a sentence:**I manage 50-year contracts that privatize the military’s utility systems from cradle to the grave.

**How long have you worked at DLA?** Seven and half years

**What is your favorite thing about working for DLA?** The abundance of support DLA provides to employees that level the playing field. Those range from reasonable accommodations to supportive supervisors who have your back.

**How do you make a difference?** Being part of a team, I am willing to go the extra mile as well as do the odd jobs that most folks shy away from.

**Why is it important to you we celebrate Disability Awareness Month?**This month lets those who have a disability know they are visible and have a purpose, whether the disability is visible or hidden. It means a lot to me. I remember when we were viewed as out-of-sight and out-of-mind. This month helps to dissuade that way of thinking.
#### Luis Jose Martinez, Appellant, v 3801 Equity Company, LLC, Respondent, et al., Defendants. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[63 NYS3d 664]—

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol R. Edmead, J.), entered on or about November 19, 2015, which granted the motion of defendant landlord 3801 Equity Company, LLC (defendant) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff alleges that he was injured when he stepped into a hole located in his employer’s backyard while taking out the garbage for the night. The hole had been dug in connection with ongoing construction by plaintiff’s employer, the Negro *446Claro Lounge, to convert its backyard into additional restaurant space. Negro Claro Lounge operated out of the premises through a verbal agreement with the lessee, third-party defendant Morales.

The subject lease provided that defendant “shall maintain and repair the public portions of the building, both interior and exterior [and that] . . . [t]enant shall, throughout the term of this lease, take good care of the demised premises . . . and at its sole cost and expense, make all non-structural repairs . . . when needed to preserve them in good working order and condition.” Here, testimony established that the accident did not occur in a public portion of the building, but rather in the backyard that was exclusively controlled by plaintiffs employer, thereby not implicating an area that defendant had retained the responsibility to maintain *(see Malloy v Friedland,*77 AD3d 583, 584 [1st Dept 2010]). Similarly, the evidence demonstrated that, in actual practice, defendant did nothing to show that it had the authority to maintain or repair the accident premises *(cf. Rubinstein v 115 Spring St. Owners Corp.,*146 AD3d 618, 618-619 [1st Dept 2017]).

Furthermore, although the lease states that defendant had the right to reenter the premises to make repairs, plaintiff has failed to show that defendant violated a specific statutory safety provision, or that the hole in which he stepped was a structural defect *(see Kittay v Moskowitz,*95 AD3d 451, 451-452 [1st Dept 2012], *lv denied*20 NY3d 859 [2013]; *Malloy*at 584).

Plaintiffs reference to an OSHA provision that was allegedly violated by defendant is unavailing, because defendant was not plaintiffs employer *(see Khan v Bangla Motor & Body Shop, Inc.,*27 AD3d 526, 529 [2d Dept 2006], *lv dismissed*7 NY3d 864 [2006]).

Concur—Friedman, J.P., Kapnick, Webber, Gesmer and Oing, JJ.
COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST FOR Report on Reductions Achieved from Incentive

- Based Emission Reduction Measures in the San Joaquin Valley

Planning Area : San Joaquin Valley PM2.5 Nonattainment Area

Title 40 CFR, Part 51, Appendix V

– Criteria for Determining the Completeness of Plan Submissions Enclosed Notes

ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS

2.1(a) Submittal Letter from Governor's Designee YES See letter from Richard Corey

, ARB Executive Officer

.
2.1(b) Evidence of Adoption YES See enclosed ARB Resolution 1 4

- 36

. 2.1(c) Legal Authority Citation YES See ARB Resolution 1 4

- 36

. 2.1(d) Copy of :

a. Attainment Plan for ozone

c. C ontingency measures, d. T ransportation control conformity budgets

c. V ehicle Miles T raveled offset demonstration d. Reason ably Available Control Measure analysis NO Not applicable.

2.1(e) Evidence of Compliance with State's Procedural Requirements YES See ARB Resolution 1 4

- 36

.

2.1(f) Evidence of Public Notice Consistent with 40 CFR part 51.102 YES See public noti ce and proof of publication in the ARB public notice published to web on September 22 , 201 4 at http://www.arb.ca.gov/lispub/rss/displa ypost.php?pno=7940
2.1(g) Certification of Public Heari ng in Accordance with Notice YES See A R B Resolution 1 4

- 36

.

2.1(h) Compilation of Public Comments and Responses NO T he re were no public comments for the ARB B oard adoption

.

2.2(a) Identification of Regulated Pollutant NO Not applicable.

2.2(b) Ide ntification of Attainment Area/Status NO Not applicable.

2.2(c) Estimate of Plan's Impact on Emissions YES See Appendix H: SIP Creditable Incentive Projects in the San Joaquin Valley

.
2.2(d) Demonstra tion that Plan Approval/Implementation Protects NAAQ S NO Not applicable.

2.2(e) Modeling Support NO Not applicable.
2.2(f)

- Compliance/Enforcement and 2.2(i) Justification NO Not applicable.

X: \ 2007

- 2008 SIPs \ Tracking SIP Progress \ Oct. Board Item \ 6. Submittal to EPA \ 6. SIP Submittal Completeness Checklist.docX: \ 2007

- 2008 SIPs \ Tracking SIP Progress \ Oct. Board Item \ 6. Submittal to EPA \ 6. SIP Submittal Completeness Checklist.doc
EXHIBIT
      32.1






**CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**




In
      connection with the accompanying annual report on Form 20-F for the
      fiscal year ended December 31, 2006 (the "Report") of NovAtel Inc., I,
      Jonathan Ladd, President and Chief Executive Officer, of NovAtel Inc.,
      hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:




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




2.
            the
                information contained in such Report fairly represents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
                NovAtel Inc.




Date:
      May 31, 2007





/s/
                Jonathan W. LaddJonathan
                W. Ladd
              *President
                and Chief Executive Officer*
No. 10M23.

#### Kerry Devin O’Bryan, Petitioner v. Louis C. Eichenlaub, Warden.

562 U.S. 819, 131 S. Ct. 376,

178 L. Ed. 2d 12,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6526.

October 4, 2010.

Motion to direct the Clerk to file a petition for writ of certiorari out of time denied.
#### Shatima Turner et al., Appellants, v Owens Funeral Home, Inc., et al., Respondents.

[50 NYS3d 870]

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J.), entered June 30, 2015, which, among other things, granted the hospital defendants’ motion and the funeral defendants’ motion for a change of venue from Bronx County to Nassau County, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

Because plaintiffs did not submit any opposition to the motions to change venue, and the order granting the motions was entered without consideration of any arguments by plaintiffs, whether oral or written, the order was entered upon plaintiffs’ default, and is not appealable *(see*CPLR 5511; *Liberty Community Assoc., LP v DeClemente,*139 AD3d 532, 532 [1st Dept 2016]; *cf. Matter of 144 Stuyvesant, LLC v Goncalves,*119 AD3d 695, 696 [2d Dept 2014] [order was not entered upon the respondent’s default where, among other things, the court addressed the arguments presented by the respondent in her oral opposition to the motion]).

*640Plaintiffs’ arguments addressed to orders that denied their motions for an adjournment and to reargue are not properly before this Court on this appeal.

Concur — Friedman, J.P., Richter, Feinman, Gische and Gesmer, JJ.
Third Amendment


 EXHIBIT10.57(d) 
  
 THIRD AMENDMENT 
 TO 
 AGREEMENT OF PURCHASE AND SALE (with Escrow Instructions) AND 
 LEASEBACK 
  
 Amendment made as of this 12TH day of
July, 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 and a Second Amendment dated June 1, 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) the Agreement, is hereby extended up to and including August 28,
2004. 
  
 3. Section 4.02 is amended by deleting the first sentence of such
Section in its entirety and substituting the following sentence in its place: 
  
 “No later than thirty (30) days prior to the Closing, Seller and Purchaser shall open an escrow with the Escrow Agent and shall deposit with the Escrow Agent a fully executed counterpart of this Agreement for use
as escrow instructions.” 
  
 4. Section 2.03(B) is amended and restated in
its entirety as follows: 
  
 “No later than August 28, 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.”

  
 5. 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
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 111 (Wednesday, June 10, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 31811]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15462]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice (98-078)]


Notice of Prospective Patent License

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of prospective patent license.

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

SUMMARY: NASA hereby gives notice that The Pregnancy Institute has 
applied for an exclusive license to practice the invention described 
and claimed in U.S. Patent No. 5,649,934, entitled ``APPARATUS FOR 
ASSISTING CHILDBIRTH,'' which is assigned to the United States of 
America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration. Written objections should be sent to Marshall 
Space Flight Center.

DATES: Responses to this notice must be received by August 10, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATON CONTACT: Robert L. Broad, Jr., Patent Counsel, 
Marshall Space Flight Center, Mail Code CC01, Marshall Space Flight 
Center, AL 35812, telephone (256) 544-0021.

    Dated: June 2, 1998.
Edward A. Frankle,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 98-15462 Filed 6-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-P
Exhibit 10.6.1


                        AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     This Amendment to Employment Agreement (the "Amendment") is entered into
this 5th day of December, 1997 by and between Specialty Care Network, Inc.
("SCN") and D. Paul Davis ("Executive").

     WHEREAS, Executive entered into an Employment Agreement, effective as of
February 22, 1996, with SCN pursuant to which Executive agreed to devote full
time to the business of the Company and to serve as a member of SCN's senior
management;

     WHEREAS, Executive and SCN acknowledge and agree that it is in the best
interest of the parties to describe more accurately the reporting relationships
in view of the organizational structure at SCN.

     NOW, THEREFORE, AND INTENDING TO BE LEGALLY BOUND HEREBY, the parties
hereby agree as follows:

     1. Section 2.2 of the aforementioned Employment Agreement is hereby amended
to state as follows:

     Duties. During the Term of the Employment Agreement, the Executive shall
devote substantially all of his time and attention and best efforts to the
Company's affairs. Specifically, the Executive shall have complete senior
management authority and responsibility, commensurate with and customary for the
person holding the office and position to which the Executive has contracted in
this Agreement, with respect to the day to day operations and long term
management of the Company, as well as implementation of the long range growth
strategy of the Company, consistent with directions from the Board of Directors
or the Chief Executive Officer. The Executive shall have full authority and
responsibility, subject to the general direction, approval and control of the
Board of Directors or the Chief Executive Officer, for formulating policies,
hiring and firing Company personnel, to retain consultants when he deems
necessary to implement the Company policies, to execute contracts on behalf of
the Company in ordinary course of business and to effect the growth strategy of
the Company.




<PAGE>


     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the
date first above written.

                                          SPECIALTY CARE NETWORK, INC.



                                          /s/ Kerry R. Hicks
                                          -------------------------------------
                                          BY:      KERRY R. HICKS
                                                   Chief Executive Officer



                                          EXECUTIVE



                                          /s/ D. Paul Davis
                                          -------------------------------------
No. 09-11466.

#### Kalvin Sims, Petitioner v. Calvin Morton, Warden, et al.

562 U.S. 882, 131 S. Ct. 204,

178 L. Ed. 2d 123,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6799.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
164 A.3d 389

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. MARTY D. ROSS, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

March 16, 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2120 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2120

  To amend and extend the authorization of appropriations for public 
                 broadcasting, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                 May 17 (legislative day, May 16), 1994

  Mr. Inouye (for himself, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Kerry, Mr. 
 Packwood, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Mathews, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Dodd, 
Mr. Durenberger, Mr. Gorton, Mr. Graham, Mr. Hatfield, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. 
Levin, Ms. Mikulski, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reid, and Mr. Wofford) introduced 
the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 
                on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend and extend the authorization of appropriations for public 
                 broadcasting, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Public Broadcasting Act of 1994''.

SEC. 2. CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING AUTHORIZATION.

    Section 396(k)(1)(C) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
396(k)(1)(C)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``and 1993'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
        ``1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, and 1999'';
            (2) by striking ``and'' after ``fiscal year 1995,''; and
            (3) by striking ``fiscal year 1996'' and inserting in lieu 
        thereof ``each of the fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, and 
        1999''.

                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 31.2**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, Dane D. Anderson, certify that:

 

1.     I havereviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MOCON, Inc.; 

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4.               The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have: 

 

a)              Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared; 

 

b)             Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c)              Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)              All significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b)             Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 

Date:  May 16, 2005

 

 
| /s/ Dane D. Anderson                         |   |
|----------------------------------------------|--------|
| Dane D. Anderson                             |
| Chief Financial Officer and Vice President   |
| (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |

 

----
No. 09-11363.

#### Dearl Duane Adams, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 876, 131 S. Ct. 185,

178 L. Ed. 2d 111,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6745.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 369 Fed. Appx. 621.
#### Com. v. Hines

10/22/2015

357 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 120 A.3d 1056
<PAGE>   1
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.12
                                 FIRST AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
                  AMENDED 1997 PREMIUM PRICED STOCK OPTION PLAN


        This First Amendment, dated as of August 27, 1998 (the "Amendment"), to
the Amended 1997 Premium Priced Stock Option Plan ("Plan") hereby amends the
Plan as follows:


        1. Amendment to Section 4.2(b). Section 4.2 (b) is hereby amended and
restated in its entirety to read as follows:

        Section 4.2 - Commencement of Exercisability

               (b) Subject to the provisions of Section 4.2(a), 4.2(c) and 7.2,
        Options shall become exercisable in two installments as follows:

                      (i) The first installment shall consist of 50 percent of
               the shares covered by the Option and shall become exercisable if,
               within three years from October 6, 1997, the Class B Common Stock
               achieves a last reported sales price, as reported by Nasdaq, of
               at least $92.50 during any 12 month period.

                      (ii) The second installment shall consist of the remaining
               50 percent of the shares covered by the Option and shall become
               exercisable if, within five years from October 6, 1997, the Class
               B Common Stock achieves a last reported sales price, as reported
               by Nasdaq, of at least $114.00 during any 12 month period.


        2. Amendment to Sections 4.3(a) and (b). Sections 4.3 (a) and (b) are
hereby amended and restated in their entirety to read as follows:

        Section 4.3 - Expiration of Options

(a)     Fifty percent of the Options shall expire on October 6, 2000, if the
        $92.50 stock price is not achieved by such date.

(b)     The remaining 50 percent of the Options shall expire on October 6, 2002
        if the $114.00 stock price is not achieved.

        3. Effectiveness of Plan. Except as expressly amended herein, the Plan
shall continue in full force and effect and is hereby ratified and confirmed in
all respects on as of the date hereof.

        4. Governing Law. This Amendment and the Plan shall be construed,
interpreted and enforced in accordance with the laws of the United States and to
the extent not preempted by such law by the laws of the State of California.


                                       1


<PAGE>   2

        5. Capitalized Terms. Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have
the meanings ascribed to them in the Plan.

        6. Section Headings. The titles of the sections hereof appear as a
matter of convenience only, do not constitute a part of this Amendment and shall
not affect the construction hereof.



                                       2
No. 09-1402.

#### Catherine Jane Von Kennel Gaudin, Petitioner v. John R. Remis, Jr.

562 U.S. 832, 131 S. Ct. 109,

178 L. Ed. 2d 31,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6379.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 334 Fed. Appx. 133.