alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Phyllis R. Zolan, Respondent, v Stephen G. Zolan, Appellant.

[768 NYS2d 336]

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated August 16, 1982, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Maraño, J), dated November 26, 2002, as granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was, in effect, for a money judgment for maintenance arrears and denied those branches of his cross motion which were to modify the judgment of divorce to eliminate his obligation to pay maintenance and provide certain insurance coverage for the plaintiffs benefit.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In this matrimonial action, the defendant former husband, inter alia, sought to modify the parties’ judgment of divorce to eliminate his obligation to pay the plaintiff former wife maintenance and provide certain insurance coverage for her benefit. However, the defendant failed to establish a substantial change in circumstances warranting such a modification *(see*Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [9] [b]; *cf. Matter of Prisco v Buxbaum,*275 AD2d 461 [2000]; *Sitler v Sitler,*266 AD2d 202 [1999]; *Manno v Manno,*224 AD2d 395 [1996]). Further, he failed to show that such a modification was warranted pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 248 *(see Matter of Bliss v Bliss,*66 NY2d 382 [1985]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently denied such relief.

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Ritter, J.P., Florio, Friedmann and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
# C_2013298EN.01000802.xml

| 12.10.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 298/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.10.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 298/8

---

Appeal brought on 4 July 2013 by Giorgio Lebedef against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 April 2013 in Case F-56/11, Lebedef v Commission

(Case T-356/13 P)

2013/C 298/14

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Giorgio Lebedef (Senningerberg, Luxembourg) (represented by F. Frabetti, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

Other party to the proceedings:

Form of order sought by the appellant

Form of order sought by the appellant

The appellant claims that the Court should:

| — | set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 April 2013 in Case F-56/11 Lebedef v Commission, in respect of an application for annulment of the decision in disciplinary proceedings of 6 July 2010 downgrading the appellant by two grades in the same function group; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of 24 April 2013 in Case F-56/11 Lebedef v Commission, in respect of an application for annulment of the decision in disciplinary proceedings of 6 July 2010 downgrading the appellant by two grades in the same function group;

Lebedef

Commission

| — | grant the appellant’s form of order sought at first instance; |
| --- | --- |

—

grant the appellant’s form of order sought at first instance;

| — | in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, refer the case back to the Civil Service Tribunal;

| — | make an order as to costs and order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

make an order as to costs and order the European Commission to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the appeal, the appellant relies on a certain number of grounds of appeal relating to paragraphs 35, 36, 44, 45, 56, 57, 69, 70, 71, 77, 78, 86, 95 and 96 of the judgment under appeal, alleging breach of the rights of the defence and infringement of the principle of prohibition of arbitrary action, since the Civil Service Tribunal distorted and misinterpreted the facts and misread and misinterpreted the application at first instance and the contested decision.

---
A











Exhibit 10.2







 



Belo Corp.







Belo 2004 Executive Compensation Plan



Form of Option Grant Agreement



(Non-Employee Director)







[DATE]







   



Belo Corp., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), pursuant to its 2004 Executive Compensation Plan (the "Plan"), grants to the member of the Board of Directors named below (the "Director") the following option to purchase shares of its Common Stock:






 



Director:  [Name]






Date of grant:  [Date]






No. of shares: [_____ shares of Series B Common Stock]






Exercise price:  [$_____ ] per share






Type of option:  Non-statutory stock option 






Exercise date:  [100% of the shares] become exercisable on and after [the first anniversary of the grant date].






Change in Control:  In the event of a Change in Control of the Company (as defined in the Plan), the option will be immediately exercisable with respect to all shares, notwithstanding the foregoing exercise date.







Expiration date:  This option will expire on, and may not be exercised after, [ten years from date of grant].






Payment of exercise price:  The exercise price for shares purchased by the Director may be paid in cash; by the Director's personal check; if permitted generally by the Compensation Committee, by authorizing the Company to withhold a number of shares having a value on the date of exercise equal to the aggregate exercise price; or by a combination of the foregoing methods.  To the extent permitted by law, the Director may also make arrangements satisfactory to the Company for the deferred payment of the exercise price from the proceeds of a sale through a bank or broker of some or all of the shares purchased on exercise or may transfer to the Company previously acquired shares of Common Stock owned by the Director for at least six months (or less if permitted by the Compensation Committee) in payment of the exercise price.






 



1







Other terms and conditions:  The Director shall not have any of the rights of a stockholder of the Company with respect to the optioned shares except to the extent that one or more certificates of optioned shares have been delivered to the Director, or the Director has been determined to be a stockholder of record by the Company's Transfer Agent, upon due exercise of the option.  






This option is subject to all other terms and conditions of the Plan.  Copies of the Plan may be obtained from the Senior Vice President/Human Resources of the Company.  By executing this Option Grant Agreement, the Director agrees to the terms set forth above and agrees to be bound by the provisions of the Plan.






 



Belo Corp.










By: __________________________________






 



_____________________________________



Director      






_____________________________________



Date






 



 



 



 



 



 



 



 



2
2017-0294.

#### State v. Brooks.

Stark App. No. 2016CA00059, 2017-Ohio-597.
EX-10.2 2005 Cash Compensation



 




Exhibit 10.2



2005 Cash Compensation



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
							Target
	Name		Title		Salary		Bonus1
	
		
		
		

	
    
    Russell Herndon
    

    	 	
    President, Commercial Operations
    	 	
    $325,000
    	 	
    40%
    
	
    
    Renu Gupta
    

    	 	
    Sr. VP, Development
    	 	
    $325,000
    	 	
    40%
    
	
    
    Peter Thornton
    

    	 	
    Sr. VP and CFO
    	 	
    $250,000
    	 	
    40%
    
	
    
    7 other officers
    

    	 	 	 	
    $200,000-$265,000
    	 	
    30%-40%
    





		
	1 	
    Percent of base salary
No. 10-297.

#### Mark W. Jenney, Petitioner v. City of Barberton, Ohio.

562 U.S. 1004, 131 S. Ct. 517,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8564.

178 L. Ed. 2d 373,

November 1, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Ohio denied.

Same case below, 126 Ohio St. 3d 5, 929 N.E.2d 1047.
Summary of Fiscal Year 2005 Award Opportunities



  
 EXHIBIT 10 (b) 
  
 Summary of Fiscal Year 2005 Award Opportunities Under The 

Alberto-Culver Company Management Incentive Plan, As Amended, 
 For Certain Executive Officers 
  
 Pursuant
to Alberto-Culver Company’s (the “Company”) Management Incentive Plan (the “MIP”), on September 21, 2004, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Compensation Committee”)
established financial performance criteria for fiscal year 2005 for Howard B. Bernick, President and Chief Executive Officer and a Director; William J. Cernugel, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; and Michael H. Renzulli, President
of Sally Beauty Company. On November 15, 2004, the Compensation Committee established financial performance criteria for fiscal year 2005 for Carol L. Bernick, Chairman and a Director and V. James Marino, President of Alberto-Culver Consumer
Products Worldwide. Under the MIP, the Compensation Committee may base a participant’s annual bonus upon one or more financial criteria set forth in the MIP, allocating the percentage weight that each such criterion has on the annual bonus. For
the officers listed above, the financial criteria and percentage allocation were established by the Compensation Committee as follows: 
  

	 	•	Carol L. Bernick’s award opportunity is weighted 50% on sales growth and 50% on operating earnings growth of the Company; 

  

	 	•	Howard B. Bernick’s award opportunity is weighted 50% on sales growth and 50% on operating earnings growth of the Company; 

  

	 	•	William J. Cernugel’s award opportunity is weighted 50% on sales growth and 50% on operating earnings growth of the Company; 

  

	 	•	V. James Marino’s award opportunity is weighted 5% on sales growth and 5% on operating earnings growth of the Company and 45% on sales growth and 45% on operating earnings
growth of Alberto-Culver Consumer Products Worldwide; and 

  

	 	•	Michael H. Renzulli’s award opportunity is weighted 5% on sales growth and 5% on operating earnings growth of the Company and 45% on sales growth and 45% on operating earnings
growth of Sally Beauty Company. 

  
 Under the MIP, “operating
earnings” means pre-tax earnings before non-recurring and other unusual items reported separately in the Company’s income statement.
No. 10-7315.

#### Austin Cooper, Petitioner v. Ray Hobbs, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.

562 U.S. 1115, 131 S. Ct. 836,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9667,

178 L. Ed. 2d 568,

December 13, 2010.

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

Same case below, 365 Fed. Appx. 740.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nathaniel Storms, Appellant.

[769 NYS2d 595]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bárbaro, J.), rendered March 7, 2002, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Upon viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the defendant, the trial court must instruct the jury on a claimed defense if it is supported by a reasonable view of the evidence *(see People v Butts,*72 NY2d 746, 750 [1988]; *People v Collins,*290 AD2d 457 [2002]). Here, the evidence established that the police responded to a call of a “burglary in progress” and arriving at the scene, observed the defendant exiting the complainant’s apartment through a second-floor window onto a fire escape. The complainant’s jewelry and television remote control were found in the defendant’s back pocket. The police officers observed that the apartment was “in shambles” and had been “ransacked,” finding “clothes everywhere,” and “[a]ll kinds of items just pulled out of drawers.” The defendant’s claim that he believed he was given permission and authority to be in the apartment by someone named “Jake” was unsubstantiated. Moreover, the trial court’s instructions to the jury on the elements of burglary and criminal possession of stolen property adequately covered the defense theory *(see People v Williams,*81 NY2d 303, 317 [1993]; *People v Banks,*248 AD2d 183 [1998]). Accordingly, the court properly refused the defendant’s request for a specific charge on the mistake of fact defense.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Prudenti, P.J., S. Miller, H. Miller and Adams, JJ., concur.
# DLA Energy Europe & Africa fuels joint U.S., Bulgarian ‘Thracian Summer 2016’ deployment

/ Published Aug. 2, 2016
FORT BELVOIR, Virgnia, 
Defense Logistics Agency Energy Europe & Africa provided key support to Thracian Summer 2016, a U.S. Air Force field training deployment to the nation of Bulgaria, July 9 – 22. 

DLA Energy Europe & Africa coordinated the procurement of 1.5 million gallons of Jet A-1 fuel in support of more than 100 personnel and three U.S. aircraft which flew more than 50 sorties out of Bulgaria’s Plovdiv Airport in order to provide airdrops of equipment and personnel. One Bulgarian aircraft also participated, airdropping 600 Bulgarian personnel in support of the exercise. 

Thracian Summer 2016 was part of the U.S. Air Force’s FY16 Developing Country Combined Exercise Program with Bulgaria, aimed at enhancing both countries’ ability to work together with other nations and key regional partners on regional security and potential future operations in support of global contingency operations. 

"It's nice to see the results of our coordination efforts, and the fact that what we do helped to strengthen relationships with our allies and partners to ensure a safe and secure European theater [is very rewarding],” said Todd McDowell, DLA Energy Europe & Africa Operations Center chief. 

More than 3,000 training objectives were accomplished during Thracian Summer 2016.

DLA Energy Europe & Africa provides comprehensive energy solutions to the U.S. European Command and U.S Africa Command areas of responsibility. The office serves as the theater item manager for bulk fuel distribution and storage in Europe and Africa, as well as additional forces supported by DLA Energy Europe & Africa to include NATO, former Soviet Bloc nations and most forces operating in the former Yugoslavia, including those operating under the auspices of the United Nations.
No. 10-6890.

#### Dwayne Smith, Petitioner v. Brenda Cash, Acting Warden.

562 U.S. 1112, 131 S. Ct. 826,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 9806.

178 L. Ed. 2d 563,

December 13, 2010.

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

Same case below, 388 Fed. Appx. 673.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 124 (Monday, June 29, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 35296]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17216]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 70-7001; 70-7002]


Procedures for Managing Gaseous Diffusion Plant Backfit 
Requirements; Notice of Availability

    On March 26, 1997, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 
published a notice of availability of the Office of Nuclear Material 
Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) Policy and Procedures Letter 1-53, ``GDP 
Plant Specific and Generic Backfit Management.'' This policy and 
procedures letter contains guidance and criteria for implementing the 
Gaseous Diffusion Plant backfit requirements of 10 CFR Part 76.76.
    NRC received public comments on NMSS Policy and Procedures Letter 
1-53, and has issued a revised version. This revised policy and 
procedures letter is available for inspection at the NRC Public 
Document Room, 2120 L Street NW (lower level), Washington, DC; the 
Paducah Public Library, 555 Washington Street, Paducah, Kentucky 42003 
(Docket No. 70-7001); and the Portsmouth Public Library, 1220 Gallia 
Street, Portsmouth, Ohio 45662 (Docket No. 70-7002).
    For further information, contact Tom Wenck, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 415-8088.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 15th day of June 1998.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Malcolm R. Knapp,
Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 98-17216 Filed 6-26-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
#### Heritage Partners LLC et al., Appellants, v Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Respondent.

[65 NYS3d 197]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered March 16, 2017, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Even if our decision in a prior action between the parties *(Heritage Partners, LLC v Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP,*133 AD3d 428 [1st Dept 2015], *lv denied*27 NY3d 904 [2016]) does not constitute res judicata barring the instant action (a question we need not address), the new complaint fails to state a cause of action for malpractice because it does not sufficiently allege that defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of plaintiff’s damages. While the current complaint addresses many of the problems we noted in the prior appeal, it does not adequately address the difficulty of “obtain[ing] debtor-in-possession financing in a troubled economic climate” *(Heritage Partners, LLC v Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP,*133 AD3d at 429). Plaintiffs allege that “any funding required to facilitate a bankruptcy plan would have been secured through the bankruptcy court’s issuance of a ‘superpriority lien’.... Plaintiffs’ over $71 million in equity cushion was more than sufficient to secure approval from a bankruptcy court for a superpriority lien for DIP Financing.” However, as defendants contend, it is conjecture that there would have a been a DIP lender willing to finance plaintiffs’ reorganization even if the bankruptcy court gave it superpriority. Unlike *In re Lake Michigan Beach Pottawattamie Resort LLC*(547 BR 899 [Bankr ND Ill 2016]), this is not a case where “the Debtor . . . offered to provide evidence ... of lenders willing to refinance the Property and pay [the existing lender] in full” *(id.*at 908). Thus, like the allegations in the prior complaint, the allegations in the current complaint are “couched in terms of gross speculations on future events and point to the speculative nature of plaintiffs’ claim” *(Heritage,*133 AD3d at 429 [internal quotation marks and brackets omitted]).

Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Andrias and Gesmer, JJ.
# Guest speaker says American Indian tribes focused on developing leaders

/ Published Dec. 7, 2015
PHILADELPHIA, 

The guest speaker at the annual American Indian Alaskan Native Month observance Dec. 1 talked about the importance of developing future Native American leaders.Mary Phillips, a member of the Laguna Pueblo Tribe of New Mexico and Omaha Tribe of Nebraska, addressed Defense Logistics Agency Troop Support and Naval Support Activity Philadelphia employees. Her work includes advocacy and research for Native American community development, youth and mental health services.“The core of Native American leadership and succession planning for tribal nations are Native American youth who make up our pipeline for emerging leaders,” Phillips said.DLA Troop Support Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity office and the NAVSUP WSS Equal Opportunity Advisory Committee co-hosted the eventIn his proclamation for National Native American Heritage Month, President Barack Obama wrote that Native Americans helped inspire some of the basic ideals of America.“As the first to live on this land, Native Americans and their traditions and values inspired – and continue to inspire – the ideals of self-governance and determination that are the framework of our nation,” Obama wrote. “This month, we recognize the contributions made by Native Americans since long before our founding.”
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 123 (Friday, June 26, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34952-34953]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-17028]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice No. 2842]


United States International Telecommunications Advisory Committee 
(ITAC) Development Sector (ITAC-D); Notice of Meeting

    The Department of State announces a meeting, under the 
International Telecommunications Advisory Committee (ITAC), of Study 
Groups 1 and 2 of the Telecommunications Development Sector (ITAC-D). 
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, July 8, 1998, 10:00 a.m.-12:00 
noon, in Room 1207 of the Department of State, 2201 ``C'' Street, NW., 
Washington, DC.
    The purpose of ITAC is to advise the Department on policy, 
technical and operational matters and to provide strategic planning 
recommendations, with respect to international telecommunications and 
information issues. The purpose of this meeting is to develop U.S. 
positions for the upcoming ITU-D meetings. The meeting agenda will 
include preparation for planned ITU-D meetings of Study Group 1 
(Telecommunications & Development Strategies and Policies) and Study 
Group 2 (Development, Harmonization, Management and Maintenance of 
Telecommunication Networks and Services, including Spectrum 
Management). Questions regarding the agenda or ITAC-D Sector activities 
in general may be directed to Doreen

[[Page 34953]]

McGirr, Department of State (202-647-0201), fax number (202-647-7407).
    Members of the General Public may attend these meetings and join in 
the discussions, subject to the instructions of the Chair. Admittance 
of public members will be limited to the seating available. In this 
regard, entrance to the Department of State is controlled.
    Persons intending to attend the meeting should send a fax to (202) 
647-7407 not later than 24 hours before the meeting. On this fax, 
please include the name of the meeting, your name, social security 
number, date of birth and organization. One of the following photo IDs 
will be required for admittance: U.S. driver's license with your 
picture on it, U.S. passport, or a U.S. Government identification 
(company ID's are no longer accepted by Diplomatic Security). Enter 
from the ``C'' Street Main Lobby.

    Dated: June 15, 1998.
Doreen F. McGirr,
Chair, U.S. ITAC for Telecommunications Sector.
[FR Doc. 98-17028 Filed 6-25-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-45-M
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23
- 2198

MICHELLE NYARKO , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. DAVITA KIDNEY CARE; JOHN 1

- 10 DOES, Inclusive , Defendants

- Appellees

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Greenbelt

. Deborah Lynn Boardman , District Judge. ( 8:22

- cv - 01141

- DLB )

Submitted : August 13, 2024 Decided: September 11, 2024

Before HARRIS, HEYTENS, and BENJAMIN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Michelle Nyarko, Appellant Pro Se. Jill Schultz Distler, Kathleen A. McGinley, JACKSON LEWIS PC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-2198 Doc: 15 Filed: 09/11/2024 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Michelle Nyarko appeals the district court’s orders granting Da V ita Kidney Care’s motion to dismiss Nyarko’s discrimination, failure

- to

- accommodate, and retaliation claims , brought pursuant to the American with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 to
12213 , and denying what the court construed as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court ’s orders

. Nyarko v. Davita Kidney Care , No. 8:22

- cv - 01141

- DLB ( D. Md

. filed Mar . 31, 2023 & entered Apr. 3, 2023; Oct. 17, 2023 ). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 23-2198 Doc: 15 Filed: 09/11/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-16-0000061 10-NOV-2016 08:47 AM