alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Joan W. Moloney, Appellant, v Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Respondent.

[767 NYS2d 897]

*509In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oliver, J.), entered August 2, 2002, which, upon the granting of the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law made at the close of the plaintiffs evidence, is in favor of the defendant and against her dismissing the complaint, and (2) a judgment of the same court entered August 19, 2002.

Ordered that the judgment entered August 19, 2002, is vacated; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the judgment entered August 19, 2002, is dismissed as academic, in light of the vacatur of the judgment; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment entered August 2, 2002, is reversed, on the law, the complaint is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for trial; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

The judgment entered August 2, 2002, was in favor of the defendant and against the plaintiff, dismissing the complaint. The judgment entered August 19, 2002, must be vacated because it was merely duplicative of the August 2, 2002, judgment (see *Kraut v New York City Tr. Auth.,*306 AD2d 383 [2003]; *Johnson v Suffolk County Police Dept.,*260 AD2d 441 [1999]).

The plaintiff allegedly was injured when she tripped over a wooden pallet on the floor between two tables displaying merchandise in the defendant’s store. After the close of the plaintiffs evidence, the Supreme Court granted the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 for judgment as a matter of law, concluding that the condition was open and obvious and, consequently, the defendant could not be held liable.

A motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 should be granted only where there is no rational process by which a jury could find in favor of the nonmoving party *(see Szczerbiak v Pilat,*90 NY2d 553, 556 [1997]; *Kilmer v Davis,*302 AD2d 563 [2003]). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and affording her every permissible inference *(see Szczerbiak v Pilat, supra*at 556), a rational jury could find liability on the part of *510the defendants. Even if a jury was to find that the wooden pallet was an open and obvious condition, such finding would be relevant to the issue of the plaintiff’s comparative negligence and would not absolve the defendant of liability *(see Cupo v Karfunkel,*2 AD3d 48 [2003]; *Acevedo v Camac,*293 AD2d 430 [2002]; *Massucci v Amoco Oil Co.,*292 AD2d 351 [2002]). Consequently, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendant’s motion. Altman, J.P., Goldstein, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
# C_2014421EN.01006403.xml

| 24.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 421/64 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 421/64

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal of 30 April 2014 — Lecolier v Commission

(Case F-83/13) (1)

1

2014/C 421/96

Language of the case: French

The President of the First Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 344, 23.11.2013, p. 69.

1

---
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.2
 Molex Incorporated
2000 Molex Long-Term Stock Plan  Stock Option Agreement
 «PARTICIPANT NAME» «GRANT DATE»
 Equity Grant «NUMBER OF SHARES GRANTED» «GRANT PRICE»
 Vesting and Expiration www.netbenefits.fidelity.com «EXPIRATION DATE»
 Exercise of Stock Option
 Effect of Termination of Employment, Death or Disability
 Restrictions
 Non-Compete
 Non-Solicitation




---



##### 



Competitors
 Forfeiture
 Injunctive Relief
 Blue Penciling
 Registration of Stock.
 2




---



##### 



Transferability
 Rights as Stockholder
 Taxes
 Continued Employment and Future Grants
 Severability
 Governing Law
 Electronic Acceptance
 Acknowledgment
 3




---



##### 



Data Transfer and Privacy
 Limitation of Liability
 Molex Incorporated
    
    ExecutiveFrederick A. Krehbiel
    
    «PARTICIPANT NAME»Co-Chairman
    
    (Signed electronically)
 4
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N
NO. 03-17-00127- CR Andre L. Walker, Appellan t

v. The State of Texas, App ellee
F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F MI LAM CO UNTY, 20TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. CR24,7 01, H ONO RAB LE JO HN Y OUNGB LOO D, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss his appea l. The m o t i o n is signe d by both appellant and his attorney . See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a)
. We g rant the motion and dismiss the appea l. See id.

__________________________________________ Cindy Olson Bour land, J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Rose, Jus tices F ield and B ourland Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion Filed: Apr il 7, 2017 Do Not Publish
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Eric Haskell, Chief Financial Officer of SunCom Wireless, Inc.,certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of SunCom Wireless, Inc.; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controlsand procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) [omitted in accordance with Section III. E. of SEC Release No. 34-47986 and SEC Release No. 34-51293] for the registrant and have: 

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) [omitted in accordance with Section III. E. of SEC Release No. 34-47986 and SEC Release No. 34-51293]; 

(c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

(d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’sboard of directors: 

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are 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 involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: November 13, 2006
No. D-2501.

#### In the Matter of Discipline of Hal J. Shaffer.

562 U.S. 809, 131 S. Ct. 398,

178 L. Ed. 2d 263,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7553.

October 4, 2010.

Hal J. Shaffer, of Cherry Hill, New Jersey, is suspended from the practice of law in this Court and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.
Exhibit
      32.1





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 Quarterly Report of Patch International, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending November 30, 2007, as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Jason G. Dagenais, Chief Operating Officer (Principal Executive Officer) of
      the
      Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1.           
      The 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.








January
                14, 2008
            /s/
                Jason G. DagenaisJason
                G. Dagenais, Chief Operating Officer and Interim Chief Financial
                Officer
              (Principal
                Executive Officer and Principal Financial
                Officer)
No. 10-5049.

#### Calvin Bruce, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 900, 131 S. Ct. 233,

178 L. Ed. 2d 155,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6060.

October 4, 2010.

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

Same case below, 377 Fed. Appx. 551.
# C_2014245EN.01001301.xml

| 28.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 11 June 2014 — Golam v OHIM — Glaxo Group (METABIOMAX)

(Case T-62/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the Community word mark METABIOMAX - Earlier national word mark BIOMAX - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2014/C 245/17

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sofia Golam (Athens, Greece) (represented by: N. Trovas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: P. Geroulakos, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Glaxo Group Ltd (Greenford, United Kingdom) (represented by: G. Ballas and N. Prentoulis, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 October 2012 (Case R 2089/2011-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Glaxo Group Ltd and Ms Sofia Golam

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Sofia Golam to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Sofia Golam to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 86, 23.3.2013.

1

---
2017-1125.

#### State v. Mack.

Medina App. No. 14CA0112-M, 2016-Ohio-982. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.
# HDIFC hosts first in person director’s call since COVID-19 began

/ Published May 28, 2022
BATTLE CREEK, Mich., 
Defense Logistics Agency employees gathered within the Hart-Dole-Inouye Federal Center’s Palm Garden Room while the global workforce joined live streaming for the latest Director’s Call.

This was the first time Disposition Services Director Mike Cannon addressed the workforce in person since COVID-19 began.

Members of the audience listened as multiple topics were discussed including site improvements, recognition of award winners and workplace culture. As the organization attempts to put the pandemic in the rearview mirror the Disposition Services team was also introduced to the building re-entry plan.

“Our re-entry plan has been very deliberate as safety is paramount,” said Charles Rice, chief of facilities for DLA Disposition Services Installation Management. “DLA [Installation Management at Battle Creek] has developed the re-entry plan and it’s comprehensive and easy to read. In it you can find any information you need about the plan including phone numbers, email addresses and office locations.”

He went on to say that any employees interested in receiving a copy of the newly created re-entry handbook should reach out to their supervisors.  

As the critical days of summer begin, the importance of outdoor and travel safety were addressed.                HDIFC hosts first in person director’s call since COVID-19 began                            Defense Logistics Agency employees gathered within the Hart-Dole-Inouye Federal Center’s Palm Garden Room for the latest Director’s Call May 23, 2022.            SHARE IMAGE:Download ImageImage DetailsPhoto By: DLA Disposition ServicesVIRIN: 220523-D-YU183-300

“We’re going to start being able to enjoy some of our favorite activities outside – but this time of year also brings a number of inherent dangers,” said Bill Cohoe, DLA Disposition Services safety manager. “We want you to think before you do things and just take a few seconds to do a hazard mitigation. Just give yourself a few extra seconds to think about your activity.”

As a final note on safety, Cannon touched on the safety in the field and the progress being made throughout the agency.

“Remember workforce safety as well,” Cannon said. “I’ve noticed out in the field that the MHE and mishaps they have been reporting are getting more and more minor which is good because it shows we are learning from our mistakes and doing a much better job.”

The workforce can expect the next Director’s Call in July providing an update on workplace culture and the ongoing planning for Disposition Services’ 50th anniversary among other topics on the agenda.
# ‘Two Continents, One Mission:’ May/June Loglines available  

/ Published May 7, 2015
FORT BELVOIR, Virginia, Defense Logistics Agency Europe & Africa      - The expansion of support to U.S. forces in Eastern Europe, including a look at how DLA Energy is supporting operations there.
      - DLA Installation Support efforts to improve facilities in Europe and Africa. 
      - A look at how operational contract support enables DLA and its customers to streamline contracts and avoid duplication.
      - DLA Disposition Services efforts to provide supplies for refugees in Europe.
      - A wrap-up of DLA’s support to Operation United Assistance, the DoD portion of the U.S. Agency for International Development-led effort to stop Ebola as it spread through West Africa.
loglines@dla.mil
No. 10-6926.

#### Marcial Avila-Anguiano, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1036, 131 S. Ct. 586,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8705.

178 L. Ed. 2d 427,

November 8, 2010.

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

Same case below, 609 F.3d 1046.
# DLA, defense industry collaborate on maximizing warfighter readiness

/ Published Aug. 30, 2016
COLUMBUS, Ohio, 
The Defense Logistics Agency keeps its promise to support warfighters around the world because of America’s defense industrial base, DLA Logistics Operations Director Navy Rear Adm. Vincent Griffith said Aug. 30 during the DLA Land and Maritime Supplier Conference and Expo in Columbus, Ohio.The three-day event is expected to give more than 90 small and large business owners the chance to collaborate with DLA and Department of Defense leaders.DLA has continued to provide effective and efficient global solutions to the military services and other federal agencies despite budget constraints, Griffith said. The agency conducts about $38 billion in sales annually and operates with DoD working capital funds, which rely on sales revenue rather than congressional appropriations. “At this point, DLA has been very successful in the working capital environment. We’ve been able to make the right investments at the right time while adding some stability to your processes,” the admiral continued. DLA and industry must create smarter business practices to manage sustainment costs for new platforms, such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and refurbish aging weapons systems like the B-52 bomber and intercontinental ballistic missile, he added.“We’re looking for innovation and partnering to produce better outcomes,” he said, noting that performance-based logistics, a tenet of Better Buying Power 3.0, will soon become a standard business practice. The challenge, he said, will be structuring PBL contracts so that industry is incentivized to increase readiness rates and maintains a profit. “I challenge us all to define that and make that happen. That’s where the true value is going to happen,” he added. And while DLA once bought supplies such as food and stored them in warehouses before sending them out to troops, Griffith said the agency is looking for ideas from industry on how to use existing commercial products.  Acting DLA Land and Maritime Commander James McClaugherty noted that positive improvements have been made in areas like reduced cost growth and reduced cycle times. However, there’s still a constant need for improvement, particularly as technology, industry and missions continue to change, he said.“I would unhesitatingly say you are our competitive advantage in the balance of national power around the world. Without your ideas, innovation and commitment, we’re not able to successfully support our warfighters,” McClaugherty added. “Together, we need to have a laser focus on long-term strategic issues.”In addition to presentations by service logisticians, DoD leaders and Frank Kendall, Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, the conference will feature panel discussions for small and large businesses as well as breakout sessions on topics ranging from cost and pricing to cybersecurity.
EXHIBIT 10.1


The following changes to the compensation of the non-employee members of the Board of Directors of Foot Locker, Inc. are effective as of January 1, 2005: 




	
  
•
  	
  
Annual retainer fee of $80,000;
  
	
  
•
  	
  
Additional retainer fee of $10,000 for the Audit   Committee Chair;
  
	
  
•
  	
  
Additional retainer fee of $7,500 for the Chairs of   each of the Compensation and Management Resources Committee, the Nominating   and Corporate Governance Committee, the Finance and Strategic Planning   Committee, and the Retirement Plan Committee; and
  
	
  
•
  	
  
Meeting fee of $1,500 for each Board and committee   meeting attended.
  







As provided under the Foot Locker 2002 Directors Stock Plan, one-half of the directors’ annual retainer fee, including committee chair retainer fees, is payable in cash and one-half is payable in shares of the Company’s Common Stock.


The annual stock option grant for non-employee directors under the Foot Locker 2002 Directors Stock Plan was not changed.  Each non-employee director receives a stock option grant on the first business day of the fiscal year, and the number of shares is calculated by dividing $50,000 by the average of the high and low prices of a share of the Company’s Common Stock on the date of grant.
# C_2014212EN.01003001.xml

| 7.7.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 212/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.7.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 22 May 2014 — NIIT Insurance Technologies v OHIM (EXACT)

(Case T-228/13) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for Community word mark EXACT - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Obligation to state reasons - Equal treatment - Article 56 TFEU))

2014/C 212/37

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: NIIT Insurance Technologies Ltd (London, United Kingdom) (represented by: M. Wirtz, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Schifko, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 February 2013 (Case R 1307/2012-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign EXACT as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders NIIT Insurance Technologies Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders NIIT Insurance Technologies Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 189, 29.6.2013.

1

---
No. D-2469.

#### In the Matter of Disbarment of Ralph T. Byrd.

562 U.S. 808, 131 S. Ct. 396,

178 L. Ed. 2d 262,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7518.

October 4, 2010.

Disbarment entered.

Former order, 560 U.S. 963, 130 S. Ct. 3449, 177 L. Ed. 2d 353, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 4749.
No. 10-273.

#### Patrick Youngs, Petitioner v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office, et al.

562 U.S. 1004, 131 S. Ct. 553,

178 L. Ed. 2d 372,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8508.

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Colorado denied.
# Energy personnel support QLLEX

/ Published June 16, 2015
FORT MCCOY, Wisconsin,
#### Com. v. Taylor

03/16/2016

778 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 125 A.3d 439
Exhibit 32.1  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 Quarterly Report of Ameritrans Capital Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 16, 2011 (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Date: May 16,  2011/s/ Michael R. Feinsod
Michael R. Feinsod
Chief Executive Officer
# C_2013367EN.01002501.xml

| 14.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 367/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 367/25

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Ferrol (Spain) lodged on 1 October 2013 — Ministerio de Defensa, Navantia S.A. v Concello de Ferrol

(Case C-522/13)

2013/C 367/44

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Referring court

Juzgado Contencioso-Administrativo No 1 de Ferrol

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Ministerio de Defensa, Navantia S.A.

Applicants:

Defendant: Concello de Ferrol

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is the tax exemption enjoyed by NAVANTIA, S.L. in respect of the Impuesto de Bienes Inmuebles (Tax on Real Property) compatible with Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), and is it compatible with Article 107 TFEU for a Member State (SPAIN) to establish a tax exemption in respect of State-owned land (property registered as 2825201QA5422N0001YG), made available to a private company whose capital is entirely publicly owned (NAVANTIA, S.L.), on which that company provides goods and services that may be traded between Member States?

---
No. 09-9350.

#### Amy Whitlock, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 949, 131 S. Ct. 67,

178 L. Ed. 2d 245,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 7727.

October 4, 2010.

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

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.

Same case below, 581 F.3d 635.