alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 The Hon. Warren K. Urbom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 01-2475NE

_____________ Kami Nichols, * * Appellee, * On Appeal from the United * States District Court v. * for the District of * Nebraska. * Plum Creek Motors, Inc., * [Not To Be Published] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: February 13, 2002 Filed: April 17, 2002

___________ Before WOLLMAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Kami Nichols brought this action for sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. The defendant is Ms. Nichols's former employer, Plum Creek Motors, Inc. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. Later, judgment was entered on the jury verdict, and, in addition, the District Court 1 awarded the plaintiff $45,000 in front pay. The propriety of this award-2- is the only question presented on appeal. We hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion, and therefore affirm. The reasons for the District Court's decisions are well stated in its order of May 14, 2001. We add a few brief observations. Defendant stresses the fact that, at the time of the trial, the plaintiff was not actively seeking work. Ms. Nichols had, however, actively sought work in the past, between the time of her discharge by defendant and her testimony at trial. She had worked no fewer than four jobs, none of which paid as well as the job with defendant that she had lost. In addition, although not formally employed, she was, at the time of trial, working in her boyfriend's business, and he was supporting her. The atmosphere at plaintiff's former employer had become very difficult. Defendant does not suggest that reinstatement should have been ordered. The amount of back pay awarded was relatively small, especially when compared with the amount requested. It appears to represent about one year's pay, and the District Court's judgment that plaintiff would have worked another year had she not been unlawfully discharged seems reasonable. We conclude, on the whole, that the District Court's award was not so far out of bounds as to deserve being labeled an abuse of discretion. Front pay is a matter of equitable relief, and the District Court is in the best position to determine whether it is appropriate. The case is not of sufficient precedential significance to require a fuller discussion. Affirmed. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
# L_2011247EN.01001501.xml

| 24.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 247/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 247/15

---

COUNCIL IMPLEMENTING DECISION 2011/627/CFSP

of 22 September 2011

implementing Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP of 29 October 2010 renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (1), and in particular Article 6(2) thereof, in conjunction with Article 31(2) of the Treaty on European Union,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 29 October 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/656/CFSP. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 29 October 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/656/CFSP.

| (2) | In view of the developments in Côte d’Ivoire, the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/656/CFSP should be amended, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

In view of the developments in Côte d’Ivoire, the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/656/CFSP should be amended,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The persons listed in the Annex to this Decision shall be deleted from the list set out in Annex II to Decision 2010/656/CFSP.

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the date of its adoption.

Done at Brussels, 22 September 2011.

For the Council

The President

M. DOWGIELEWICZ

---

(1)  
  OJ L 285, 30.10.2010, p. 28.

1

---

ANNEX

Persons referred to in Article 1

| 2. | Lieutenant-Colonel Nathanaël Ahouman Brouha |
| --- | --- |
| 19. | Mr Yao N’Dré |
| 52. | Mr Timothée Ahoua N’Guetta |
| 53. | Mr Jacques André Daligou Monoko |
| 54. | Mr Bruno Walé Ekpo |
| 55. | Mr Félix Tano Kouakou |
| 56. | Ms Hortense Kouassi Angoran |
| 57. | Ms Joséphine Suzanne Touré |
| 79. | Colonel Major Hilaire Babri Gohourou |
| 89. | Mr Roland Dagher |
| 105. | Zakaria Fellah |
| 107. | Charles Kader Gore |
| 109. | Kadio Morokro Mathieu |

2.

Lieutenant-Colonel Nathanaël Ahouman Brouha

19.

Mr Yao N’Dré

52.

Mr Timothée Ahoua N’Guetta

53.

Mr Jacques André Daligou Monoko

54.

Mr Bruno Walé Ekpo

55.

Mr Félix Tano Kouakou

56.

Ms Hortense Kouassi Angoran

57.

Ms Joséphine Suzanne Touré

79.

Colonel Major Hilaire Babri Gohourou

89.

Mr Roland Dagher

105.

Zakaria Fellah

107.

Charles Kader Gore

109.

Kadio Morokro Mathieu

---
NO. 07-00-0293-CR

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL A

	MAY 9, 2001

	______________________________

	JOSEMARIA SERVANTEZ OROZCO, APPELLANT

	V.

	THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

	_________________________________

	FROM THE COUNTY COURT OF PARMER COUNTY;

	NO. 8316; HONORABLE BONNIE J. CLAYTON, JUDGE

	_______________________________

Before BOYD, C.J., and REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ.

	Appellant Josemaria Servantez Orozco appeals from his conviction and sentence in Cause No. 8316 in the County Court of Parmer County (the trial court), for Driving While Intoxicated.  

	On October 12, 2000, this court abated the appeal and remanded the cause to the trial court for hearing and determination of whether appellant desired to prosecute his appeal.  On April 5, 2001, the trial court held a hearing to determine whether appellant desired to prosecute his appeal.  The appellate clerk has received and filed a Supplemental Clerk’s Record and a Reporter’s Record in regard to the hearing of April 5th. The trial court has made and forwarded to the appellate clerk its findings and recommendations pursuant to prior direction from this court.  Those findings include a finding that appellant does not desire to prosecute this appeal.

	Accordingly, we determine that appellant does not desire to prosecute his appeal, has abandoned the appeal and has constructively withdrawn his Notice of Appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 2 and 42.2.  We dismiss the appeal.  See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).     

								Phil Johnson

								    Justice

Do not publish.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   11-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,406
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,987
<ALLOWANCES>                                        51
<INVENTORY>                                        437
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,080
<PP&E>                                           2,037
<DEPRECIATION>                                     709
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  29,551
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,339
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             6
<OTHER-SE>                                       4,726
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    29,551
<SALES>                                         15,755
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                15,755
<CGS>                                            4,075
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   25,355
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (69)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    16
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 276
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (9,807)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (1,237)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (9,600)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (8,569)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.96
        

</TABLE>
#### Com. v. Steel.

06/29/2016

113 EAL (2016)

Denied

Pa.Super., 141 A.3d 602
II

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION S. 2130

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to adjust the death benefit

limits for certain policies purchased to cover payment of burial expenses

or in connection with prearranged funeral expenses.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 18 (legislative day, MAY 16), 1994

Mr. DOLE (for himself and Mr. BREAUX) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to adjust

the death benefit limits for certain policies purchased

to cover payment of burial expenses or in connection

with prearranged funeral expenses.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF DEATH BENEFIT LIMITS FOR

4 CERTAIN POLICIES.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subparagraph (C)(i) of section

6 7702(e)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating

7 to limited increases in death benefit permitted) is amended
2

•S 2130 IS

1 by striking ‘‘$5,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$7,000’’ and by strik2 ing ‘‘$25,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$34,000’’.

3 (b) INFLATION ADJUSTMENTS.—Section 7702(e) of

4 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to computa5 tional rules) is amended by adding at the end the following

6 new paragraph:

7 ‘‘(3) INFLATION ADJUSTMENT TO DEATH BEN8 EFIT LIMITS FOR YEARS AFTER 1995.—In the case of

9 any taxable year beginning in a calendar year after

10 1995, each dollar amount contained in paragraph

11 (2)(C)(i) shall be increased by an amount equal to—

12 ‘‘(A) such dollar amount, multiplied by

13 ‘‘(B) the cost-of-living adjustment deter14 mined under section 1(f)(3) for the calendar

15 year in which the taxable year begins, by sub16 stituting ‘calendar year 1994’ for ‘calendar year

17 1992’ in subparagraph (B) thereof.’’

18 (c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section

19 72(e)(10)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is

20 amended by striking ‘‘$25,000’’ and inserting ‘‘$34,000’’.

21 (d) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

22 this section shall apply to contracts entered into on and

23 after January 1, 1995.

Æ
2016-1874.

#### State ex rel. Bergen v. Northgate Masonry, Inc.

Franklin App. No. 15AP-923, 2016-0hio-7705. Pursuant to R.C. 2710.06(B)(1), the court has been notified that the parties have reached a settlement. This case is returned to the regular docket under S.Ct.Prac.R. 19.01. Within 60 days, the filing party shall file either an application for dismissal or a notice of failure of settlement. The case will be dismissed for want of prosecution if an application for dismissal or a notice of failure of settlement is not filed within 60 days.
# Incoming DLA Europe and Africa Commander, Deputy Commander visit Troop Support

/ Published March 22, 2021
Philadelphia, 
The inbound commander and deputy commander of Defense Logistics Agency Europe and Africa paid their first visit to Troop Support in Philadelphia on 18 March.

Inbound Commander Col. Faith Chamberlain and inbound Deputy Commander Donald Bruce met with Troop Support Commander Brig. Gen. Gavin Lawrence, Deputy Commander Richard Ellis, and Executive Director of Contracting and Acquisition Management William Kenny. 

They also received an overview about Troop Support’s operations and briefings from Troop Support’s five supply chains. In addition, the duo met with J 3/5 Operations to discuss the challenges unique to their area of operation.
No. 12-8613.

#### Rickert *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
FILED 

 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 

 03/05/99 

 THOMAS K. KAHN 

 CLERK

[PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 98-4426

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 97-3108-CIV-LENARD

ERNESTO ALONSO MEJIA RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

JANET RENO, as Attorney General of the United States,

and the IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE,

Respondents-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(March 5, 1999)

Before CARNES and HULL, Circuit Judges, and HENDERSON, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

The Court sua sponte VACATES its opinion in the above-styled case, which

is currently published at 164 F.3d 575 (11th Cir. 1999). The case is resubmitted to

the Court for decision. Petitioner/Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing is DENIED as

MOOT.
Schedule of Compensation for Non-Employee Directors


 EXHIBIT 10.1 
  
 GLOBALSANTAFE CORPORATION 
  
 Schedule of Compensation for Non-Employee Directors 
 (Effective October 1, 2004) 
  

  

				
	 Annual Retainer
	  	$	32,000
	 Committee Chairman Annual Retainer:
	  	 	 
	 Audit Committee
	  	$	10,000
	 Compensation Committee
	  	$	7,500
	 Executive Committee
	  	$	5,000
	 Nominating and Governance Committee
	  	$	5,000
		
	 Board Chairman Annual Retainer
	  	$	300,000
		
	 Board Meeting Fee
	  	$	2,5001
		
	 Committee Meeting Fee
	  	$	2,5001
		
	 Special Assignment Fee (per day)
	  	$	1,000
		
	 Annual Stock Option Grant (#)
	  	 	6,0002
		
	 Annual Restricted Stock Grant (#)
	  	 	3,0003



	1	The fee will be $2,000 if participation is by telephone. 


	2	In each year following the year of initial eligibility. Each non-employee director receives a
stock option grant for the purchase of 10,000 ordinary shares in his or her year of initial eligibility. All stock options will vest 50% one year from date of grant and the remaining 50% two years from date of grant. The other terms of the stock
options will be determined by the Compensation Committee, which will make the grants at its discretion on the date of adjournment of each annual general meeting of shareholders. 


	3	The terms of the restricted stock will be determined by the Compensation Committee, which
will make the annual grant at its discretion on the date of adjournment of each annual general meeting of shareholders.
#### In the Matter of Commissioner of Social Services, on Behalf of Daisy E.R., Respondent, v Dorian E.L., Appellant.

[58 NYS3d 530]

Appeal from an order of filiation of the Family Court, Orange County (Carol S. Klein, J.), dated June 27, 2016. The order of filiation, upon, in effect, denying the application of Dorian E. L. for a genetic marker test, granted the paternity petition of the Orange County Department of Social Services and adjudicated Dorian E. L. to be the father of the subject child.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the notice of appeal from the order of filiation is deemed an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted *(see*Family Ct Act § 1112 [a]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order of filiation is reversed, on the law and the facts, without costs and disbursements, the appellant’s application for a genetic marker test is granted, and the matter is remitted to the Family Court, Orange County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

In November 2015, the Orange County Department of Social Services filed a paternity petition against the appellant on *583behalf of the mother of the subject child, alleging him to be the father of the child, who was born in 2007. The appellant requested a genetic marker test, commonly known as a DNA test. After a hearing, the Family Court determined that the appellant was estopped from contesting paternity, in effect, denied his application for a DNA test, and entered an order of filiation adjudicating the appellant to be the father of the child.

Contrary to the Family Court’s determination, the appellant should not have been estopped from contesting his paternity of the child. Considering the lack of a relationship between the appellant and the child, there was no evidence that “the child would suffer irreparable loss of status, destruction of her family image, or other harm to her physical or emotional well-being” if the DNA test were administered and it was ultimately shown that the appellant was not the biological father of the child *(Matter of Derrick H. v Martha J.,*82 AD3d 1236, 1239 [2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see Matter of Rayisha S.R. v Donnie S.,*123 AD3d 833, 833-834 [2014]; *Matter of Sidney W. v Chanta J.,*112 AD3d 950 [2013]).

Accordingly, we cannot conclude that a genetic marker test of the appellant’s and the child’s DNA would be contrary to the best interests of the child.

Mastro, J.P., Hall, Cohen and Ian-nacci, JJ., concur.
#### People v Sanchez

2d Dept: 144 AD3d 880

denied*
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>  	<C>
<PERIOD-TYPE> 	3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>  	SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-END> 	DEC-30-1996
<CASH>	63,155
<SECURITIES>	183,304
<RECEIVABLES>  	703,216
<ALLOWANCES>	9,900
<INVENTORY>	0
<CURRENT-ASSETS> 	0
<PP&E>  	17,979
<DEPRECIATION>	9,529
<TOTAL-ASSETS> 	1,142,222
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>  	0
<BONDS>  	204,828
<COMMON> 	293
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>  	0
<PREFERRED> 	21,573
<OTHER-SE>	28,610
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  	1,142,222
<SALES> 	0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>	40,585
<CGS>	0
<TOTAL-COSTS>	28,225
<OTHER-EXPENSES> 	0
<LOSS-PROVISION>  	586
<INTEREST-EXPENSE> 	5,835
<INCOME-PRETAX>	5,939
<INCOME-TAX>	2,022
<INCOME-CONTINUING>  	3,917
<DISCONTINUED>	0
<EXTRAORDINARY>  	0
<CHANGES>  	0
<NET-INCOME>	3,881
<EPS-PRIMARY> 	21,981.00
<EPS-DILUTED> 	21,981.00
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 113 (Friday, June 12, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 32247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-15690]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Appalachian National Scenic Trail

AGENCY: National Park Service; Interior.

ACTION: Record of decision.

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

SUMMARY: This action announces a decision on a proposed exchange of 
federally-owned lands for privately owned lands near Cloud Bank Road, 
Township of Philipstown, Putnam County, New York.
    The National Park Service's Appalachian National Scenic Trail will 
continue with negotiations to exchange federally-owned lands for 
privately-owned lands near Cloud Bank Road in the Garrison, New York 
area. The federally-owned lands include the Colt Estate Dam. The 
authority for this exchange is Section 5(b) of the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund Act Amendments in Public Law 90-401 approved July 15, 
1968 and Section 7(f) of the National Trails System Act, Public Law 90-
543, as amended.
    The proposal to exchange lands has generated a significant amount 
of public interest. On June 28, 1997, the National Park Service (NPS) 
published a Notice of Realty Action describing the lands to be 
exchanged. The National Park Service subsequently conducted a public 
meeting concerning the proposed exchange in Garrison, New York on 
December 16, 1997.
    Written comments both in favor of and in opposition to the proposed 
exchange were received from concerned citizens and local, state and 
federal officials. Comments from the public at the Garrison meeting 
also were recorded for review and evaluation.
    The comments expressed can be characterized as fitting into four 
main themes: (1) Concern over transferring lands protected by the NPS 
to private citizens, (2) Concern over development over the exchanged 
lands, (3) Concern with the condition of the Colt Estate Dam, and (4) 
Concern with land valuation.
    In response to the concerns expressed by the public, the 
Appalachian Trail Park Manager has directed the Appalachian Trail Land 
Acquisition Office to continue with negotiations to exchange the 
federally-owned lands for privately-owned lands. The conditions of the 
exchange now will include conservation restrictions to be held by a 
third party, non-profit entity on the property to be exchanged, and 
deed provisions whereby the owners, his heirs and assigns agree to 
maintain liability insurance with assurances that dam repairs and 
maintenance are performed to the satisfaction of New York State dam 
safety officials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chief, Acquisition Division, National 
Park Service, AT/LAFO, PO Box 908, Martinsburg, WV 25402, 304-263-4943.

    Dated: May 19, 1998.
Pamela Underhill,
Park Manager, Appalachian National Scenic Trail.
[FR Doc. 98-15690 Filed 6-11-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
Rev. 11

MANUFACTURING AND SALES AGREEMENT

           The PAUL MUELLER COMPANY ("PMC") hereafter, a Missouri Corporation, and DeLaval Inc., a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Kansas City, Missouri ("DELAVAL U.S."), desire that PMC manufacture and sell to DELAVAL U.S. a line of milk-cooling and storage equipment intended for use on dairy farms.  This agreement sets out the terms for such manufacture and sale.

  1.      PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT:  The manufacturing party and selling party is Paul Mueller Company, a Missouri corporation with its principal offices at 1600 West Phelps Street, Springfield, Missouri 65801.  The purchasing party is DELAVAL U.S., a Delaware Corporation with its principal offices in Kansas City, Missouri.

  2.      GENERAL PURPOSE:  This document is intended to set out the terms under which PMC will manufacture for DELAVAL US. a line of milk-cooling and storage equipment for use primarily on dairy farms in North America as well as other countries at the option of DELAVAL U.S.

  3.      PRODUCTS TO BE MANUFACTURED:  The products to be manufactured under this agreement (the "Products") are Closed-top milk coolers in standard sizes sold by DELAVAL U.S. through 8,000-gallon capacity, and other products as may be mutually agreed by the parties.

           The parties intend that the following products will be added to this agreement by appropriate amendment provided that PMC is able to provide a competitive offering acceptable to DELAVAL U.S.:

                    -       Vertical Silo Milk Storage tanks