alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Clear All

        11 April 2024    

                    USS Gunston Hall Returns Home After NATO Exercise Steadfast Defender 2024                 
                The Whidbey Island-class dock landing ship USS Gunston Hall (LSD 44) returned home to Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek, April 11, following Steadfast Defender 2024, NATO’s largest exercise in decades.             

        30 March 2024    

                    USS Gunston Hall Arrives in Cherbourg, France                  
                The Whidbey Island-class dock landing ship USS Gunston Hall (LSD 44) arrived in Cherbourg, France, 28 March, to disembark French Marines following NATO’s largest exercise in decades, exercise Steadfast Defender 24.             

        08 July 2022    

                    USS Gunston Hall (LSD 44) arrives in Copenhagen, Denmark for mid-deployment voyage repair                 
                The Whidbey Island-class dock landing ship USS Gunston Hall (LSD 44) and embarked Marines with the 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) arrived in Copenhagen, Denmark, July 8, 2022, to complete a scheduled maintenance availability and to strengthen relations with a key NATO ally.            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
Clear All

        08 February 2023    

                    Blue-Green Dream Team: Integrating Navy and Marine Forces Aboard BATARG for PMINT                 
                Over the course of almost two weeks, the Bataan Amphibious Ready Group (BATARG) and 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) successfully integrated with Amphibious Squadron 8 (PHIBRON 8) across the three ships Wasp-class amphibious assault ship USS Bataan (LHD 5), San Antonio-class amphibious transport            

        28 June 2022    

                    SECNAV presides over ESG2 change of command                 
                NORFOLK, VA — By 1030 on June 24, USS Bataan’s (LHD 5) hangar bay was full of Marines in midnight blue coats and Sailors in white chokers. Most of them chatted amongst themselves in hopes it might help kill the 30 remaining minutes before show time. A smaller handful scurried about non-skid to sort            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 24.1

                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

I, Travis Lee Provow, a duly elected Director of COMDIAL CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation, do hereby constitute and appoint Ralph R. Dyer and Carla K. Luke,
or either of them, my true and lawful attorneys-in-fact, each with full power of
substitution, for me and in my name, place and stead, in any and all capacities
(including without limitation, as Director of Comdial), to sign Comdial's Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002, which is to be filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, with all exhibits thereto, and any
and all documents in connection therewith, hereby granting unto said
attorney-in-fact and agent full power and authority to do and perform any and
all acts and things requisite and necessary to be done, and hereby ratifying and
confirming all that said attorney-in-fact and agent may do or cause to be done
by virtue hereof. This power of attorney shall not terminate upon my disability.

Dated: 03/27/03


       /s/ Travis Lee Provow
       -------------------------------------
       Travis Lee Provow
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Rodney Bunsen and wife, * From the 32nd District

Martha Bunsen, Court of Fisher County,

 Trial Court No. 6330.

Vs. No. 11-15-00128-CV * July 9, 2015

Jack Perry Family Limited Partnership, * Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

 This court has considered Rodney and Martha Bunsen’s motion to 

dismiss this appeal and concludes that the motion should be granted. 

Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the appeal is dismissed. 

The costs incurred by reason of this appeal are taxed against Rodney Bunsen 

and wife, Martha Bunsen.
(86 South. 926)

#### BELL v. STATE.

(6 Div. 80.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 10, 1920.

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1920.)

Certiorari to Court of Appeals.

Roderick Beddow and Ben. Ray, both of Birmingham, for appellant.

J. Q. Smith, Atty. Gen., for the State.

PER CURIAM.

Petition by Bud Bell, alias Will Rogers, for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of said court rendered on the appeal of Bud Bell, alias, etc., v. State of Alabama, 86 South. 139. Writ denied.
Clear All

        02 October 2023    

                    2023 Stockdale Leadership Award Recipients Announced                 
                The Navy announced Cmdr. David Burke, from U.S. Fleet Forces Command, and Cmdr. Jeffrey C. Fassbender, from U.S. Pacific Fleet, as the 2023 recipients of the Vice Admiral James Bond Stockdale Award for inspirational leadership, Oct. 2.            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Boles, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Weissman, J.), rendered November 4, 1985, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Rubin, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.
Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 29 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 1 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 29 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 2 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 29 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 3 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 29 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 4 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 29 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 5 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 29 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 6 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 29 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 7 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 29 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 8 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 29 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 9 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 29 Filed 12/07/2007 Page 10 of 10
#### Daryl Preston, Respondent-Appellant, v State of New York, Appellant-Respondent.

(Claim No. 75058.)

Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs and claim dismissed, in accordance with the following memorandum: The State appeals from so much of the order of *944the Court of Claims as denied in part its motion for summary judgment. Claimant cross-appeals from the same order to the extent that it granted partial summary judgment to the State dismissing claimant’s claim arising from his indictment, prosecution, conviction and sentencing for assault upon seven individuals. Claimant asserts that he should be permitted, to recover for injuries resulting from his own criminal acts and conviction because of the State’s medical malpractice in failing to commit him involuntarily. The court was correct in rejecting this claim, because it has long been recognized that a person should not be allowed to recover for his own criminal acts *(see, Barker v Kallash,*63 NY2d 19, 24-26; *Riggs v Palmer,*115 NY 506). We reject claimant’s invitation to liken this claim to those instances where the State has been held responsible for injuries to individuals committed to institutional care *(see, e.g., Huntley v State of New York,*62 NY2d 134; *Calabria v State of New York,*176 Mise 925, *affd*263 App Div 1056, *affd*289 NY 613; *Shattuck v State of New York,*166 Mise 271, *affd*254 App Div 926). Further, because of his guilty plea claimant is barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel from asserting that his psychiatric condition prevented him from perceiving that his conduct was wrongful *(see, S. T. Grand, Inc. v City of New York,*32 NY2d 300, 304-305, *rearg denied*33 NY2d 658; *Merchants Mut. Ins. Co. v Arzillo,*98 AD2d 495, 504-505). At oral argument claimant stated that no claim is being made for injuries unrelated to his criminal activities, thereby rendering moot the issue raised by the State on its direct appeal. Consequently, the order of the Court of Claims should be modified and judgment entered dismissing claimant’s claim. (Appeals from order of Court of Claims, Margolis, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Pine, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
NOTICE TO CLERK OF COURT: Please accept this Initiating Complaint as an initial pleading 

pursuant to CMO __, dated ____________, of Hon. Alvin K. Hellerstein in In Re World Trade 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

 

IN RE WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER 

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE LITIGATION 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

21 MC 102 (AKH) 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

XXXXX, 

 Plaintiff(s), 

 -againstXXXXX, 

 Defendants. 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

 XX Civ. XXXX (AKH) 

INITIATING COMPLAINT

Pursuant to Case Management Order No. __ (“CMO __”) dated June __, 2007 by Hon. 

Alvin K. Hellerstein, U.S.D.J., in In Re World Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site 

Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH), Plaintiff(s) hereby submit this Initiating Complaint against the 

above named Defendants and state: 

1. Plaintiff ____________ (XXXX) [Å last 4 digits of social security number] 

currently resides at ______________. 

2. Plaintiff(s) have a claim for injury against the Defendants named above that 

would be encompassed within the scope of the In Re World Trade Center Lower Manhattan 

Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). 

3. Plaintiffs will file a fully complete Check-Off Complaint under this docket 

number within 30 days of the filing of this Initiating Complaint. 

Case 1:07-cv-01526-AKH Document 2-4 Filed 06/29/2007 Page 1 of 2
NOTICE TO CLERK OF COURT: Please accept this Initiating Complaint as an initial pleading 

pursuant to CMO __, dated ____________, of Hon. Alvin K. Hellerstein in In Re World Trade 

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

Dated: _____ __, 200X 

{law firm name} 

Attorney(s) for 

Plaintiff(s)_______________________ 

By: ________ 

 {name} 

{law firm address} 

Telephone: _______________ 

Case 1:07-cv-01526-AKH Document 2-4 Filed 06/29/2007 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 866 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 866

     To provide an exception to certain mandatory minimum sentence 
   requirements for a law enforcement officer who uses, carries, or 
   possesses a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence 
          committed while pursuing or apprehending a suspect.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 4, 2009

   Mr. Brady of Texas (for himself, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Culberson, Mr. 
   Rohrabacher, Mr. McCaul, Mr. Marchant, Mr. Latta, Mr. Gingrey of 
Georgia, Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Broun of Georgia, Mr. 
  Harper, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. Kingston, and Mr. Sam Johnson of 
    Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To provide an exception to certain mandatory minimum sentence 
   requirements for a law enforcement officer who uses, carries, or 
   possesses a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence 
          committed while pursuing or apprehending a suspect.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Law Enforcement Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. EXCEPTION TO CERTAIN MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCING REQUIREMENTS 
              FOR A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO USES, CARRIES, OR 
              POSSESSES A FIREARM DURING AND IN RELATION TO A CRIME OF 
              VIOLENCE COMMITTED WHILE PURSUING OR APPREHENDING A 
              SUSPECT.

    Section 924(c)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by 
redesignating subparagraphs (B) through (D) as subparagraphs (C) 
through (E), respectively, and inserting after subparagraph (A) the 
following:
    ``(B) The minimum sentencing requirements of subparagraph (A) shall 
not apply if--
            ``(i) at the time the person used, carried, or possessed 
        the firearm, the person was a law enforcement officer 
        authorized to carry the firearm;
            ``(ii) the offense under this paragraph occurred while the 
        person was on-duty, and during or in relation to the pursuit or 
        apprehension of an individual who the person reasonably 
        believed had committed a crime; and
            ``(iii) the crime committed by the person during and in 
        relation to which the offense under this paragraph occurred is 
        a crime of violence.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Julie Paruch, Respondent, v Bart D. Kaplan, Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for legal malpractice, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Becker, J.), dated October 24, 1988, which *930granted the plaintiffs motion to vacate a judgment based upon her default in appearing for an examination before trial directed by this court.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the plaintiffs motion is denied and the complaint is dismissed.

In our prior decision and order in this case *(Paruch v Kaplan,*140 AD2d 417), we affirmed so much of a prior order as denied the defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint, "on condition that the plaintiff appear for a further examination before trial at a time and place to be specified in a notice of not less than 10 days to be given by the defendant, which examination shall be held within 60 days after the date of this decision and order”. We further ordered *(supra,*at 417) that "in the event the condition is not complied with, then the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the [plaintiffs renewed motion for summary judgment] is denied and the defendant’s cross motion is granted”. As the plaintiff failed to comply with the condition imposed by this court and failed to appear at a scheduled deposition after having been given five weeks’ notice, by the self-executing provisions of our decision and order, dismissal of the complaint was mandated.

We further note that, in view of our prior decision and order, the Supreme Court had no authority to extend the time to hold the examination before trial *(see, Maracina v Schirrmeister,*152 AD2d 502). Mollen, P. J., Brown, Lawrence and Spatt, JJ., concur.
EX-10.4.2





 Exhibit 10.4.2 

SECOND AMENDMENT TO TRANSFER AGENCY AND SERVICE AGREEMENT 
 WHEREAS, World Gold Trust (the “Trust”), a Delaware statutory trust organized in series (each, a “Fund” and collectively, the “Funds”), and The Bank of New York Mellon, a New
York corporation authorized to do a banking business (“BNY Mellon”), have heretofore entered into a Transfer Agency and Service Agreement (“Agreement”), dated as of January 5, 2017, as amended June 6, 2018; and

 WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to amend the Agreement (“Amendment”) to reflect the removal of SPDR® Long
Dollar Gold Trust, a series of the Trust, from Appendix A. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the agreements and obligations
set forth herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, each of the Trust, on behalf of each Fund, and BNY Mellon hereby amend the Agreement and agree as follows: 

Appendix A.    Appendix A is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with Appendix A set forth below to
reflect the removal of SPDR® Long Dollar Gold Trust: 
 “Appendix A 

SPDR® Euro Gold Trust 
 SPDR® Pound
Gold Trust 
 SPDR® Yen Gold Trust 

SPDR® Gold MiniShares Trust” 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to be duly executed and delivered as of October 2, 2019. 

 

			
	 WORLD GOLD TRUST,

On behalf of each Fund listed on Appendix A,
 as
amended herein

		
	By:	 	 /s/  Gregory S. Collett

	 Name:
 Title:

Date:
	 	 Gregory S. Collett*
 Vice
President
 October 2, 2019

	  
 * Authorized to sign on behalf
of the Trust in this
 capacity since an officer of the Trust’s sponsor



  

			
	THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Elizabeth Stubenrauch

	 Name:
 Title:

Date:
	 	 Elizabeth Stubenrauch

Relationship Manager
 October 11,
2019
**EXHIBIT 10.10**

**AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE TO THE**

**ROCK-TENN COMPANY SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN**

**(AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE AS OF JANUARY 1, 2003)**

Pursuant to the power reserved in § 8 of the Rock-Tenn Company Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (“Plan”), the Committee herebyamends the Plan, effective as of January 1, 2004 (unless otherwise herein stated), as follows: 

§ 1. 

By adding a new § 2.26, Benefit Service, to read as follows: 

2.26. Benefit Service. The term “Benefit Service” shall mean the Participant’s years of service used to calculate his or her SERP III benefit which i**s**equal to the sum of his or herVesting Service plus three (3) more years of service. 

§ 2. 

By amending § 3.1(d), SERP III Benefit, to read as follows: 

(d) SERP III Benefit. 

(1) General Rule. If a Participant is designated aseligible for a SERP III Benefit, his or her SERP Benefit shall equal the excess, if any, of (A) over (B) where 

(A) equals 3.5833% of his or her Final Average Compensation multiplied by the number of his or her years of Benefit Service (up to a maximum of 15 years of Benefit Service), and 

(B) equals the sum of (1) his or her Social Security Benefit, (2) the benefits actually payable to, or on behalf of, theParticipant under the Pension Plan, (3) the Actuarial Equivalent of the benefits payable to, or on behalf of, the Participant from his or her matching account under the 40l(k) Plan and (4) the Actuarial Equivalent of the benefits payable to, oron behalf of, the Participant attributable to the credits to his or her employer credit account under the Supplemental Plan. 

(2) Change in Control. In the event of a Change in Control, a Participant’sbenefit under this § 3.1(d) shall be determined based on his or her Benefit Service as of the Change in Control Date if he or she is under age 60 on such date. However, if such Participant is age 60 or older as of the Change in Control Date, heor she will be deemed to have 15 years of Benefit Service for purposes of determining his or her benefit on the Change in Control Date. 

§ 3. 

By amending § 3.2, Vested Benefit, to read as follows: 

3.2 Vested Benefit. If a Participant is not fully vested in his or her accrued benefit under the Pension Plan (based on the actual number of yearsof vesting service he or she has completed under the Pension Plan) on his or her Employment Termination Date, he or she shall forfeit his or her benefit under this SERP. 

§ 4. 

Except as hereinabove amended and modified, the Plan as amended and restated effective as ofJanuary 1, 2003 shall remain in full force and effect. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,based on a resolution adopted by the Committee, Rock-Tenn Company has caused this Amendment Number One to be executed by its duly authorized officer this 25th day of February, 2004. 

 
ROCK-TENN COMPANYBy: 
/s/ Steven C. Voorhees
Title: EVP/CFO
#### RAU *v.*BOSWORTH, RECEIVER.

certiorari to the circuit court oe appeals eor the seventh circuit.

No. 13.

Argued October 24, 25, 1899.

Decided December 17, 1900.

This case having been argued with No. 12, *ante,*415, at the same time, and by the same counsel, the decision of the court in that case is followed in this.

The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

*Mr. Burton Harrison*for Rau.

*Mr. Bluford Wilson*for Bosworth.

Mr. Justice White

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is another of the claims in intervention which originated from the fire in a railroad yard at East St. Louis on the night of October 28, 1894, referred to in the opinion just delivered in *Huntting Elevator Company*v. Bosworth, No. 12 of this term. The claim of Rau was for the value of two cars of barley shipped from Wykoff, Minnesota, consigned to the Orthwein Grain Company, St. Louis, to be sold for the account of the consignor. The cars were delivered by a connecting carrier to the Peoria Company and were deposited on its tracks in a portion of the Terminal Association yards at East St. Louis on the *444afternoon of October 25,1894. While so held, awaiting orders for further movement, the cars and contents were destroyed by the fire in question.

The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a decree which had been entered by the Circuit Court in favor of the claimant. Applying the principles declared in the opinion delivered in the *Huntting Elevator Company*case,

*The decree of the Circuit Court of Appeals must he reversed a/nd the decree of the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Illinois affvrmed.*
#### BREWSTER, Respondent, v. BARLOW, et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.

April 13, 1894.)

Action by John T. M. Brewster against William Barlow and another. B. B. Barnum, for appellants. L. J. Morrison, for respondent.

No opinion. Order reversed, with $10 costs and printing disbursements, unless, within 30 days, the plaintiff obtain an order of the court amending the original summons so as to conform to copy served, and pay to defendant costs of this appeal and of such motion; in which event, the order appealed from Is affirmed, without costs.