alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Abraham Smith, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Delin, J.), rendered May 3, 1985, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that an in-court identification by the complainant should have been suppressed because it was tainted by an impermissibly suggestive photographic identification procedure. While we agree that the procedure used was suggestive, suppression was properly denied because the People proved by clear and convincing evidence that the com*864plainant had an independent source on which to base an in-court identification *(see, Manson v Brathwaite,*432 US 98; *United States v Wade,*388 US 218; *People v Adams, 53*NY2d 241). The complainant viewed the man who snatched her necklace for about five minutes in broad daylight during which time he twice walked between the parked car in which she was seated and a house across the street. She testified that she was aware of the actions of the defendant and his companion because she felt vulnerable and at one point had placed her purse under the car seat.

The defendant also contends that the court erred when it permitted the prosecutor, on his redirect examination at the trial, to question the complainant about her belated identification of the defendant in the photographic array. Although generally evidence of an extrajudicial identification of a photograph of a defendant is inadmissible *(see, People v Griffin,*29 NY2d 91; *People v Caserta,*19 NY2d 18), such evidence is allowed when the defense counsel opens the door on cross-examination *(see, e.g., People v Levy,*123 AD2d 885, *lv denied*69 NY2d 713; *People v Francis,*123 AD2d 714; *People v Langert,*105 AD2d 845; *see also, People v Bolden,*58 NY2d 741). Here, after the defense counsel asked the complainant if she had previously identified a photograph of someone other than the defendant, the prosecutor could properly elicit testimony from her on redirect examination to explain and clarify that issue *(see, People v Melendez, 55*NY2d 445). Mollen, P. J., Eiber, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.
Case 1:07-cv-05359-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 1 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05359-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 2 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05359-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 3 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05359-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 4 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05359-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 5 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05359-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 6 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05359-AKH Document 8 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 7 of 7
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.10

             EXTENSION AGREEMENT TO CONTINUE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
                  BETWEEN STUART P. BURBACH ("EXECUTIVE") AND
          POGO PRODUCING COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION ("COMPANY"),
                       DATED EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 1, 2001


         WHEREAS, Executive and Company are parties to an "Employment Agreement"
bearing an original "Effective Date" of February 1, 1996; and

         WHEREAS, February 1, 2001, (even date herewith) is hereby deemed to be
the "Renewal Date" in that Employment Agreement; and

         WHEREAS, Executive and Company each wish to extend said Employment
Agreement for an additional one-year period so as to terminate (unless further
extended) two years thereafter, (to-wit January 31, 2003); and

         WHEREAS, Company desires to retain the services of Executive for the
benefit of Company and its shareholders, and desires to induce Executive to
remain in its employ for that extended time period; and

         WHEREAS, Executive has agreed to continue to serve as an employee of
Company for the period specified herein from and after the date of this
Extension Agreement; and

         WHEREAS, Company and Executive desire to enter into this Extension
Agreement in order to formally secure for Company the benefit of the experience
and abilities of Executive, and to set forth the agreements and understandings
of Company and Executive; and

         WHEREAS, Company has advised Executive that execution and performance
of this Extension Agreement by Company has been duly authorized and approved by
all requisite corporate action on the part of the Company.
<PAGE>

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual
promises and agreements herein contained, and in consideration of the sum of $10
paid by Company to Executive, receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged by
Executive, Executive and Company do hereby agree as follows:

         1. The Employment Agreement between Executive and Company bearing an
"Effective Date" of February 1, 1996 and a "Renewal Date" which is deemed herein
to be February 1, 2001, is hereby extended for an additional one-year period
commencing February 1, 2002 and ending January 31, 2003, unless such employment
period is hereafter further extended for an additional period by both Executive
and Company.

         2. All provisions of the Employment Agreement between Executive and
Company dated as of February 1, 1996, and as it is herein amended, are continued
in full force and effect without change as if the Employment Agreement had been
initially effective as of February 1, 2001.

                     POGO PRODUCING COMPANY



                     By: /s/ JOHN O. McCOY, JR.
                       -----------------------
                       Senior Vice President and
                       Chief Administrative Officer


ATTEST:

/s/ JOE ANN KINGDON
-----------------------------
Assistant Corporate Secretary

                     EMPLOYEE:


                     /s/ STUART P. BURBACH
                     ---------------------
                     Stuart P. Burbach
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 813 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 11, 2009 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

AN ACT 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 306 East Main Street in Elizabeth 

City, North Carolina, as the ‘‘J. Herbert W. Small Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’. 

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


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

HR 813 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The Federal building and United States courthouse 

3 located at 306 East Main Street in Elizabeth City, North 

4 Carolina, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘J. Her5 bert W. Small Federal Building and United States Court6 house’’. 

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

8 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

9 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 

10 building and United States courthouse referred to in sec11 tion 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘J. Herbert 

12 W. Small Federal Building and United States Court13 house’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 10, 

2009. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
# CE2012099EN.01018601.xml

| 3.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 99/186 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 99/186

---

Wednesday 24 November 2010Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement between the EC and Moldova ***

P7_TA(2010)0428

European Parliament legislative resolution of 24 November 2010 on the draft Council decision on the conclusion of a Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Moldova, of the other part, on a Framework Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Moldova on the general principles for the participation of the Republic of Moldova in Union programmes (10496/2010 – C7-0330/2010 – 2010/0102(NLE))

2012/C 99 E/47

(Consent)

The European Parliament,

The European Parliament

| — | having regard to the draft Council decision (10496/2010), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the draft Council decision (10496/2010),

| — | having regard to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Moldova, of the other part (1), concluded on 28 November 1994, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement establishing a partnership between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Moldova, of the other part (1), concluded on 28 November 1994,

1

| — | having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council pursuant to Articles 114, 168, 169, 172, 173(3), 188 and 192 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), Article 218(7) and the second subparagraph of Article 218(8) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0330/2010), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the request for consent submitted by the Council pursuant to Articles 114, 168, 169, 172, 173(3), 188 and 192 and Article 218(6), second subparagraph, point (a), Article 218(7) and the second subparagraph of Article 218(8) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (C7-0330/2010),

| — | having regard to Rules 81 and 90(8) of its Rules of Procedure, |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to Rules 81 and 90(8) of its Rules of Procedure,

| — | having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A7-0300/2010), |
| --- | --- |

—

having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on Foreign Affairs (A7-0300/2010),

| 1. | Consents to conclusion of the Protocol; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Consents to conclusion of the Protocol;

| 2. | Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Republic of Moldova. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and of the Republic of Moldova.

---

(1)  OJ L 181, 24.6.1998, p. 3.

1

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                Exhibit 10.ii


                      FIRST AMENDMENT TO HUFFY CORPORATION
                         1990 DIRECTORS' RETIREMENT PLAN
                      ------------------------------------


This Amendment is made and effective as of February 15, 1996 to Huffy
Corporation 1990 Directors' Retirement Plan (the "Plan"), approved and adopted
on January 27, 1990 by the Board of Directors of Huffy Corporation (the
"Company"), under the following circumstances:

A.    The Plan provides that an annual benefit is to be paid on the Payment
      Date, as defined in the Plan, to an Eligible Director after his or her
      retirement from the Board beginning after the Director reaches age sixty
      (60); however, several members of the Board will reach age sixty (60)
      before retirement from the Board and will not receive payment until after
      retirement;

B.    Section 9 of the Plan permits the Board of Directors to amend the Plan at
      any time; and

C.    On February 15, 1996, the Board of Directors approved amending the Plan in
      accordance with the terms set forth below.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended as follows:

1.    DEFINITIONS.  All capitalized terms herein, unless otherwise specifically 
      defined in this Amendment, shall have the meanings given to them in the
      Plan.

2.    AMENDMENT.  The first paragraph of Section 5 of the Plan is hereby amended
      in its entirety to read as set forth below:

              "SECTION 5.  COMMENCEMENT AND DURATION OF ANNUAL BENEFIT

              The Annual Benefit shall be paid to an Eligible Director after
              his or her retirement from the Board of Directors beginning on
              the first Payment Date occurring on the later of (i) the
              Director reaching age sixty (60) or (ii) the Director retiring
              from the Board of Directors, unless some other year is
              specified by the Eligible Director, as provided in this
              Section 5, but shall not commence (a) before the later of the
              year the Eligible Director may receive payment as provided in
              (i) and (ii) above, or (b) after the year such Eligible
              Director attains age seventy (70)."

3.    EFFECTIVE DATE AND AFFIRMATION.  This Amendment shall be effective as of 
      February 15, 1996. Except as amended hereby, the Plan remains unchanged
      and in full force and effect.


<PAGE>   2


Page 2


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this First Amendment has been executed as of February 15,
1996.


                                                    HUFFY CORPORATION


                                                    By /S/ Nancy A. Michaud
                                                       ---------------------
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following Registration
Statements of Rock-Tenn Company of our reports dated December 14, 2005, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedules of Rock-Tenn
Company, Rock-Tenn Company management's assessment of the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting of Rock-Tenn Company, included in this Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended September 30, 2005.

(i) the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-77237) pertaining to the
Rock-Tenn Company 1993 Employee Stock Option Plan, the Rock-Tenn Company 1993
Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the Rock-Tenn Company 1989 Stock Option Plan and
the Rock-Tenn Company 1987 Stock Option Plan;

(ii) the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-83304) pertaining to the
Rock-Tenn Company 1993 Employee Stock Option Plan, the Rock-Tenn Company 1993
Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the Rock-Tenn Company Incentive Stock Option Plan,
and the Rock-Tenn Company 1987 Stock Option Plan;

(iii) the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-62338) of Rock-Tenn Company
pertaining to the registration of $300,000,000 of debt securities;

(iv) the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-104870) pertaining to the
Rock-Tenn Company Supplemental Retirement Savings Plan;

(v) the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-113212) pertaining to the
Rock-Tenn Company 1993 Employee Stock Purchase Plan;

(vi) the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-62346) pertaining to the
Rock-Tenn Company 1993 Employee Stock Option Plan and the 2000 Incentive Stock
Plan, and the Rock-Tenn Company 2004 Incentive Stock Plan; and

(vii) the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-122745) pertaining to the
Rock-Tenn Company 2004 Incentive Stock Plan.



                                             Ernst & Young LLP


Atlanta, Georgia
December 14, 2005
Case 1:07-cv-05742-RJH Document 28 Filed 04/21/2008 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-05742-RJH Document 28 Filed 04/21/2008 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-05742-RJH Document 28 Filed 04/21/2008 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-05742-RJH Document 28 Filed 04/21/2008 Page 4 of 4
#### Cheryl Barnes, Respondent, v Housing Council of the Niagara Frontier, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costs and defendants’ motion granted. Memorandum: Special Term erred in denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s first cause of action alleging breach of contract. Plaintiff had no contract of employment *921with defendant Housing Council and was admittedly an employee at. will. The language in the personnel manual relied upon by plaintiff is insufficient to limit the employer’s unfettered right to terminate an at-will employee *(see, Sabetay v Sterling Drug,*69 NY2d 329; *O’Connor v Eastman Kodak Co.,*65 NY2d 724, *rearg denied*65 NY2d 1054; *Mann v Insurance Co.,*138 AD2d 966; *Battaglia v Sisters of Charity Hosp.,*124 AD2d 987; *Collins v Hoselton Datsun,*120 AD2d 952). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Fallon, J. — dismiss causes of action.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Lawton, JJ.
METHFESSEL & WERBEL, ESQS. 

450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1400 

New York, NY 10123 

(212) 947-1999 

Attorneys for BMS Catastrophe, Inc. 

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

EUGENIUSZ SKRZECZKOWSKI AND 

AJICJA SKRZECZKOWSKI, 

Plaintiff, 

-AGAINST110 CHURCH LLC, 53 PARK PLACE 

LLC, 90 CHURCH STREET LIMITED 

PARTNERSHIP, ALAN KASMAN 

DBA KASCO, AMBIENT GROUP, INC., 

ANN TAYLOR STORESCORPORATION, 

BATTERY PARK CITY AUTHORITY, 

BELFORUSA GROUP, INC., 

BLACKMON-MOORING-STEAMATIC 

CATASTOPHE, INC. D/B/A BMS CAT.,

Et.al. 

Defendants. 

21 MC 102 (AKH) 

INDEX NO.: 07CV4517 

NOTICE OF ADOPTION OF ANSWER 

TO MASTER COMPLAINT 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendant, BMS Catastrophe, Inc. s/h/a 

Blackmon-Mooring-Steamatic Catastophe, Inc. d/b/a BMS Catastrophe, by 

their attorneys, Methfessel & Werbel, as and for their response to the 

allegations set forth in the Complaint by Adoption (Check-Off Complaint) 

Related to the Master Complaint filed in the above referenced action, hereby 

adopts their Answer and defenses to the Master Complaint, dated July 26, 

2007, which was filed in the matter of: In Re World Trade Center Lower 

Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). 

 To the extent that Defendant’s Answer to the Master Complaint does not 

comprehensively address any of the specific allegations within the Check-Off 

Case 1:07-cv-04517-AKH Document 12 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 1 of 3
Complaint in the above captioned matter, Defendant, Defendant, BMS 

Catastrophe, Inc., denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as 

to the truth of such specific allegations. 

 WHEREFORE, the defendant, Defendant, BMS Catastrophe, Inc., 

demands judgment dismissing the above captioned action as against them, 

together with costs, disbursements and such other and further relief as this 

Court deems just and proper. 

DATED: New York, New York 

 September 21, 2007 

METHFESSEL & WERBEL, ESQS. 

Attorneys for BMS Catastrophe 

 

By:________________________________ 

Frank J. Keenan (FK 8922) 

450 Seventh Avenue 

Suite 1400 

New York, New York 10123 

(212) 947-1999 

Case 1:07-cv-04517-AKH Document 12 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned hereby certifies as follows: 

 l. I am employed by the law firm of Methfessel & Werbel. 

 2. On September 19, 2007 the undersigned prepared and 

forwarded copies of the within Notice of Adoption , via ECF, to the 

following parties: 

 Worby Groner Edelman & Napoli Bern, LLP 

5 Broadway, 12th Floor 

New York, NY 10006 

Attorneys for: Plaintiff 

All Defense Counsel 

 3. I certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am 

aware that if any of the foregoing statements made by me are wilfully false, I am 

subject to punishment. 

 

____________________________________ 

Frank J. Keenan 

Case 1:07-cv-04517-AKH Document 12 Filed 09/21/2007 Page 3 of 3
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 12.1

                               XTRA CORPORATION
           STATEMENT OF THE CALCULATION OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                For the twelve months ended September 30, 1996
                             (Millions of dollars)

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                                                       1996
                                                                    --------
  <S>                                                               <C> 
  EARNINGS
  Income from operations before provision for income taxes          $  69.1
    Add: Fixed charges (below)                                         66.2
                                                                    --------
                                                                    $ 135.3
                                                                    --------


  FIXED CHARGES
    Interest expense                                                $  66.0
    Interest portion of rent expense                                    0.2
                                                                    --------
                                                                    $  66.2
                                                                    --------


    Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                                  2.0
                                                                    --------
</TABLE> 


       For purposes of computing the ratio of earnings to fixed charges,
       "earnings" represents income from operations before taxes plus fixed
       charges. "Fixed charges" for operations consist of interest on
       indebtedness and the portion of rental expense which represents interest.
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.1







SECOND AMENDMENT
TO
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”), by and between CatchMark Timber Trust, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the “Company”), and Jerrold Barag (“Executive”), is entered into and effective as of December 19, 2019.  
WHEREAS, the Company and Executive have previously entered into that certain Employment Agreement, dated as of October 30, 2013 (the “Original Employment Agreement”); 
WHEREAS, effective as of December 31, 2018, the Company and Executive entered into that certain First Amendment to the Original Employment Agreement (as so amended, the “Employment Agreement”);
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 18(c) of the Employment Agreement, the Employment Agreement may be amended or modified by a written agreement executed by the Company and Executive; 
WHEREAS, the Company and Executive now desire to amend the Employment Agreement as set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual agreements set forth herein and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties hereto hereby agree as follows:    
SECTION 1.    Amendment. The Employment Agreement is hereby amended as follows: 
Section 1 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to provide that upon expiration of the 2019 Renewal Period on December 31, 2019, the Employment Agreement shall automatically renew for a one-year period ending December 31, 2020 (the “2020 Renewal Period”).  The 2020 Renewal Period shall be included in the definition of “Renewal Period” and “Term” for purposes of the Employment Agreement.   
SECTION 2.    Effect on Employment Agreement.  The Employment Agreement, as amended by this Amendment, is and shall continue to be in full force and effect, and is, as hereby amended, confirmed and ratified.  From and after the date hereof, each reference in the Employment Agreement to “this Agreement”, “hereunder”, “hereof” or other words of like import shall, except where the context otherwise requires, mean the Employment Agreement as amended by this Amendment.  
SECTION 3.    Counterparts; Facsimile Transmission.  This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, and all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument.  Executed counterparts may be delivered via facsimile or electronic transmission.


[Signature page follows.]






Exhibit 10.1





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the day and year first written above. 




THE COMPANY:


CATCHMARK TIMBER TRUST, INC.


By:  /s/ Donald S. Moss                
Name: Donald S. Moss
Title: Chair of Compensation Committee






EMPLOYEE:






Jerrold Barag                                 
Jerrold Barag
































































[Signature Page to Second Amendment to Employment Agreement]