alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Com. v. Holmes 18

03/29/2016

804 MAL (2015)

18

. Justice WECHT did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Denied

Pa.Super., 120 A.3d 1050
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 124 (Monday, June 29, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 35244]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17170]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin 
Diseases; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.

    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclosed confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which of 
which constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
    Name of Committee: National Institute of Arthritis and 
Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, NIAM 
Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: July 9-10, 1998.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Double Tree Hotel, 1750 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 
20852.
    Contact Person: John R. Lymangrover, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Administrator, NIAMS, 45 Center Drive, Room 5AS 25, Bethesda, MD 
20892, (301) 594-4952.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Arthritis and 
Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, Basic 
Research on Biomechanical Signalling Mechanisms in Cartilage.
    Date: July 16, 1998.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Holiday Inn Chevy Chase, 5520 Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy 
Chase, MD 20815.
    Contact Person: Tommy L. Broadwater, Ph.D., Chief, NIAMS, 45 
Center Drive, Room 5AS25U, Bethesda, MD 20892.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Arthritis and 
Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Special Emphasis Panel, 
Osteoporosis.
    Date: July 26-27, 1998.
    Time: 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Holiday Inn Chevy Chase, 5520 Wisconsin Avenue, Chevy 
Chase, MD 20815.
    Contact Person: Tommy L. Broadwater, Ph.D., Chief, NIAMS, 45 
Center Drive, Room 5AS25U, Bethesda, MD 20892.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.846, 
Arthritis, Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Research, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: June 23, 1998.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 98-17170 Filed 6-26-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Amendment No. 1 to Employment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.19 
  
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
  
 This Amendment No. 1 (this “Amendment”) to the Employment Agreement dated as of April 2, 2003 (the
“Employment Agreement”), between InfoSpace, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) and Edmund O. Belsheim, Jr. (“Employee”), is made this 9th day of December, 2004 by and between the Company and Employee. Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined are used as defined in the Employment
Agreement. 
  
 WHEREAS, the Company and the Employee desire to
amend the Employment Agreement as provided herein; 
  
 NOW
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the continuing employment of the Employee by the Company, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties
agree as follows: 
  

	 	1.	Amendment to Section 6(d) of the Employment Agreement. Section 6(d) is amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows: 

  
 “Death. In the event of Employee’s death while employed
hereunder (i) one hundred percent (100%) of the Employee’s then unvested stock options shall immediately vest and become exercisable; and (ii) Employee’s beneficiary (or such other person(s) specified by will or the laws of descent and
distribution) (x) will receive continuing payments of severance pay (less applicable withholding taxes) at a rate equal to Employee’s base salary for a period of ninety (90) days from Employee’s death, to be paid periodically in accordance
with the Company’s normal payroll policies; (y) will receive Company-paid COBRA benefits as specified in Section 6(b)(iii) above for ninety (90) days from Employee’s death; and (z) have the right to exercise Employee’s stock options
for one (1) year following Employee’s death.” 
  

	 	2.	Effect on the Employment Agreement. Except as specifically set forth herein, the Employment Agreement shall not be otherwise amended but shall remain in full force and
effect, subject to the terms thereof. 

  

	 	3.	Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument.


  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
Amendment to be executed on the date first above written. 
  

					
	INFOSPACE, INC	 	EMPLOYEE
			
	By:	 	 /s/ James F. Voelker

	 	 /s/ Edmund O. Belsheim, Jr.


	 	 	James F. Voelker	 	Edmund O. Belsheim, Jr.
	 	 	Chief Executive Officer
No. 10-7364 (10A456).

#### Phillip D. Hallford, Petitioner v. Alabama.

562 U.S. 1027, 131 S. Ct. 556,

178 L. Ed. 2d 411,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8662.

November 4, 2010.

Application for stay of execution of sentence of death, presented to Justice Thomas, and by him referred to the Court, denied. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Alabama denied.
No. 10-6793.

#### Espiridion Aranda, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1020, 131 S. Ct. 549,

178 L. Ed. 2d 402,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8405.

November 1, 2010.

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

Same case below, 377 Fed. Appx. 626.
No. 10-10.

#### Michael D. Turner, Petitioner v. Rebecca L. Rogers, et al.

562 U.S. 1002, 131 S. Ct. 504,

178 L. Ed. 2d 369,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8485.

November 1, 2010.

Motion of Larry E. Price, Sr. for leave to intervene granted. Motion of respondents for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of South Carolina granted. In addition to the question presented by the petition the parties are directed to brief and argue the following question: “Does the Court have jurisdiction to review the decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court?”

Same case below, 387 S.C. 142, 691 S.E.2d 470.
#### Bloom, Matter of

2d Dept: 143 AD3d 173

denied
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-21-00358-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF I.B., JR., A CHILD §

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 324th District Court

of Tarrant County (324-690890-20)

April 28, 2022

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Brian Walker

 Justice Brian Walker
# DLA leaders learn more about DLA Distribution Europe, Expeditionary team efforts 

/ Published April 23, 2024
GERMERSHEIM, Germany  , 
Leadership and experts from Defense Logistics Agency Distribution Europe recently hosted Rear Adm. Doug Noble, director, DLA logistics operations, Kevin Kachinski, executive director of Defense Logistics Agency Operations, and Army Col. A.J. Sullivan, commander, DLA Europe and Africa, for an update of their efforts supporting DLA and multinational exercises in the region.

During the visit, Noble and the group learned about the support DLA Distribution Europe provides to warfighters in three Combatant Commands, the outbound transportation team, and met with members of the DLA Distribution Expeditionary team who are currently setting up at Germersheim Army Depot to support the Defender 24 exercise.

The expeditionary team will process Military Air cargo in support of the exercise via a Theater Consolidated & Shipping Point operation. An expeditionary team from DLA Disposition will also be based on GAD to support the exercise. It is the largest U.S. Army exercise in Europe and includes more than 17,000 U.S. and 23,000 multinational servicemembers from more than 20 Allies and partner nations.

“The team is currently learning the nuances and complexities of logistics in Europe and how the requirements differ from country to country,” said Neil Flanagan, deputy Commander, DLA Distribution Europe.

Noble emphasized the flexibility that the DLA Distribution Expeditionary team provides the organization, whether through exercise support in Europe or natural disaster support in the United States and thanked the DLA Distribution Europe team for their daily support to the warfighter.

Learn more about the DLA Distribution Expeditionary team

Learn more about Defender 24
COMPLETENESS CHECKLIST FOR 2008 0.075 ppm 8

- HOUR OZONE REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (RACT) SIP SUBMITTAL

Planning Area: 

### Ventura County Air Pollution Control District

Title 40 CFR, Part 51, Appendix V

– Criteria for Determining the Completeness

of Plan Submissions Enclosed Notes

2.1 ADMINISTRATIVE MATERIALS

2.1(a) Submittal Letter from Governor's Designee  Letter from Richard W. Corey, ARB EO

to Jared Blumenfeld

2.1(b) Evidence of Adoption  District Resolution dated June 10, 2014

and ARB EO

2.1(c) Legal Authority Citation  District Resolution dated June 10, 2014

and ARB EO

2.1(d) Copy of Reasonably Available Control

Technology (RACT) analysis  2014 RACT SIP Revision

2.1(e) Evidence of Compliance with State's Procedural Requirements  SIP Completeness Checklist

APCD Rule Evaluation Form

2.1(f) Evidence of Public Notice Consistent with 40 CFR part 51.102  Certificate of Publication

– Public Notice dated April 3, 2014

2.1(g) Certification of Public Hearing in

Accordance with Notice  District Resolution dated June 10, 2014

2.1(h) Compilation of Public Comments and Responses  No public comments

2.2 TECHNICAL SUPPORT

2.2(a) Identification of Regulated Pollutant  RACT Analysis

2.2(b) Identification of Attainment Area/Status  RACT Analysis

2.2(c)

, Estimate of Impact on Emissions, 2.2(d )

, Demonstration Plan Protects NAAQS, 2.2(e) Modeling Support N/A

2.2(f)

- Compliance/Enforcement and 2.2(i) Justification N/A
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Craig A. Leabo, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 849]

— Kane, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Franklin County (Main, Jr., J.), rendered February 25, 2002, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

A grand jury indicted defendant on the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, both class B felonies. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to the reduced crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, a class D felony, in satisfaction of the indictment, two pending violation of probation petitions, and any potential narcotics charges arising from incidents which occurred in the periods three months before and after the date of the allegations in the indictment. No sentence was recommended. The plea included a waiver of the right to appeal, except as to the sentence. County Court sentenced defendant to a term of two to six years’ incarceration.

Defendant’s arguments concerning the voluntariness of his plea and ineffectiveness of counsel are not preserved for our review because he did not move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction *(see People v Camp,*302 AD2d 629, 630 [2003], *lv denied*100 NY2d 593 [2003]; *People v King,*299 AD2d 661 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 583 [2003]). His sentence is not harsh or excessive. It is moderate considering defendant’s *1214criminal history, his exposure to two concurrent terms of 81⁄3 to 25 years on the original charges, plus the dismissal of the probation violation petitions and waiver of other potential charges *(see People v Sczepankowski,*293 AD2d 212, 215-216 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 564 [2002]).

Crew III, J.P., Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
No. 10-6353.

#### Vonne I. Torrez, Petitioner v. Clifford E. Eley.

562 U.S. 1046, 131 S. Ct. 600,

178 L. Ed. 2d 439,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8823,

November 15, 2010.

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

Same case below, 378 Fed. Appx. 770.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 124 (Monday, June 29, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35201-35202]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17161]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Title and OMB Number: Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation 
Supplement (DFARS) Part 205, Publicizing Contract Actions, and DFARS 
252.205-7000, Provision of Information to Cooperative Agreement 
Holders; OMB Number 0704-0286.

[[Page 35202]]

    Type of Request: Extension.
    Number of Respondents: 6,862.
    Responses per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 6,862.
    Average Burden per Response: 1.1 hours.
    Annual Burden Hours: 7,548.
    Needs and Uses: This information collection requirement pertains to 
contractor information provided to Cooperative Agreement Holders. DFARS 
Subpart 205.4 and the clause at DFARS 252.205-7000 require that defense 
prime contractors awarded contracts over $500,000 provide to 
cooperative agreement holders, upon request, a list of employees or 
offices that are responsible for entering into subcontracts under 
defense contracts. The list must include the business address, 
telephone number, and area of responsibility of each employee or 
office. The purpose of the cooperative agreements is for the agreement 
holders to provide procurement technical assistance to business 
entities within a specified geographic area. This guidance implements 
10 U.S.C. 2416.
    Affected Public: Business or Other For-Profit; Not-For-Profit 
Institutions.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Peter N. Weiss.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Mr. Weiss at the Office of Management and 
Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Robert Cushing. Written requests for 
copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. 
Cushing, WHS/DIOR, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, 
VA 22202-4302.

    Dated: June 22, 1998.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 98-17161 Filed 6-26-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 16 (Monday, January 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 3728]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-1696]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER98-1178-000]


Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation; Notice of filing

January 20, 1998.
    Take notice that on December 22, 1997, Niagara Mohawk Power 
Corporation (NMPC), tendered for filing with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission an executed Transmission Service Agreement 
between NMPC and DTE Energy Trading, Inc. This Transmission Service 
Agreement specifies that DTE Energy Trading, Inc., has signed on to and 
has agreed to the terms and conditions of NMPC's Open Access 
Transmission Tariff as filed in Docket No. OA96-194-000. This Tariff, 
filed with FERC on July 9, 1996, will allow NMPC and DTE Energy 
Trading, Inc., to enter into separately scheduled transactions under 
which NMPC will provide transmission service for DTE Energy Trading, 
Inc., as the parties may mutually agree.
    NMPC requests an effective date of December 4, 1997. NMPC has 
requested waiver of the notice requirements for good cause shown.
    NMPC has served copies of the filing upon the New York State Public 
Service Commission and DTE Energy Trading, Inc.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions 
or protests should be filed on or before February 2, 1988. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion 
to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-1696 Filed 1-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 10-158.

#### Robert C. Huntzinger, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 1003, 131 S. Ct. 507,

178 L. Ed. 2d 371,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8466.

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces denied.

Same case below, 69 M.J. 1.
#### Chaim Victor Salameh et al., Respondents, v Igor Yarkovski et al., Defendants, and Cab East, LLC, Appellant.

[64 NYS3d 569]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Cab East, LLC, appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County *660(Toussaint, J.), dated August 3, 2016, as denied, as premature, its motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, with leave to renew after the completion of discovery.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

A party should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery prior to the determination of a motion for summary judgment *(see Martino v Midtown Trackage Ventures, LLC,*147 AD3d 1040, 1040 [2017]; *Okula v City of New York,*147 AD3d 967, 968 [2017]; *Brea v Salvatore,*130 AD3d 956, 956 [2015]; *Malester v Rampil,*118 AD3d 855, 856 [2014]). A party opposing summary judgment is entitled to obtain further discovery when it appears that facts supporting the opposing party’s position may exist but cannot then be stated *(see*CPLR 3212 [f|; *Ingram v Bay Ridge Auto. Mgt. Corp.,*145 AD3d 672, 672-673 [2016]; *Nicholson v Bader,*83 AD3d 802, 802 [2011]). “A party contending that a summary judgment motion is premature must demonstrate that discovery might lead to relevant evidence or that the facts essential to justify opposition to the motion were exclusively within the knowledge and control of the movant” *(Antonyshyn v Tishman Constr. Corp.,*153 AD3d 1308, 1310 [2017] [internal quotation marks omitted]; *see Rungoo v Leary,*110 AD3d 781, 783 [2013]; *Cajas-Romero v Ward,*106 AD3d 850, 852 [2013]).

Here, the defendant Cab East, LLC (hereinafter Cab), moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it less than two months after the plaintiffs commenced this action, prior to the exchange of any discovery. Furthermore, in this action to recover damages for personal injuries arising from a motor vehicle accident, the submissions in opposition to Cab’s motion sufficiently established that facts may exist that would demonstrate that Cab owned one of the vehicles involved in the accident. Thus, an opportunity should be provided for the parties to conduct discovery which may result in disclosure of relevant information. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied, as premature, Cab’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it, with leave to renew upon the completion of discovery *(see*CPLR 3212 [f]; *Martino v Midtown Trackage Ventures, LLC,*147 AD3d at 1040; *Ingram v Bay Ridge Auto. Mgt. Corp.,*145 AD3d at 673; *Brea v Salvatore,*130 AD3d at 957; *Nicholson v Bader,*83 AD3d at 802; *cf. Rungoo v Leary,*110 AD3d at 783; *Cajas-Romero v Ward,*106 AD3d at 852).

Eng, P.J., Roman, Miller and Christopher, JJ., concur.
##### 



ALBERT HAWKINS
EXECUTIVE COMMISSIONER
  
  529-03-450-J
   sheryl.sauls@hhsc.state.tx.us.
 Sincerely,/s/ Shery Sauls

Shery SaulsContr
     




---



##### 



HHSC Contract# 529-03-0002-00001JSTATE OF TEXASHHSC Legacy # 529-03-450JCOUNTY OF TRAVIS
 HARRIS COUNTY SERVICE DELIVERY AREA
 Amendment) 1200 East Copeland Road, Suite 200,
Arlington, Texas 76011. Party Parties.
   Section 1.01 Authorization.
  Section 1.02 Effective Date.
 2006. 2006,
 THE OBLIGATIONS OF
 THE PARTIES Section 2.01 Modification of Article 13, Payment Provisions
 Article 13, Payment Provisions, is amended by modifying Section
13.1.2, as follows:
  HHSC Contract# 529-03-0002-00001J
 HHSC Legacy # 529-03-450J
    
    Page 1 of 2
    
    Effective Date: September 1, 2006




---



##### 



FY 2007Member Risk Groups
    
    Monthly Capitation Amounts9/1/2006 - 8/31/2007CBA Waiver Clients-Dual EligibleCBA Waiver Clients-Medicaid Only
    
    ***REDACTED***Other Community Clients-Dual EligibleOther Community Clients-Medicaid OnlyNursing Facility Clients-Medicaid Only
 Section2.02 Modification of Article 19, Term
 Article 19, Term, is amended by modifying Section 19.1, as follows:
 December 31,
2006,
 ARTICLE 3. REPRESENTATIONS AND AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES
   IN WITNESS HEREOF, HHSC and the HMO have each caused this Amendment to be signed
and delivered by its duly authorized representative.
 AMERIGROUP TEXAS INC.
    
    HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSIONBy:Aileen McCormick
    
    Albert HawkinsPresident and CEO
    
    Executive Commissioner
 HHSC Contract# 529-03-0002-00001J
 HHSC Legacy # 529-03-450J
    
    Page 2 of 2
    
    Effective Date: September 1, 2006