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

        27 November 2022    

                    USNS COMFORT ARRIVES IN DOMINICAN REPUBLIC FOR CONTINUING PROMISE                 
                SANTO DOMINGO, Dominican Republic (Nov. 27, 2022) – Hospital ship USNS Comfort (T-AH 20) anchored off the coast of Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic in support of U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command/U.S. 4th Fleet’s Continuing Promise 2022 (CP22) mission, Nov. 27.The Comfort will hold subject matter            

        25 November 2022    

                     USNS COMFORT COMPLETES ITS THIRD MISSION STOP OF CP 2022 IN COLOMBIA                 
                CARTAGENA, Colombia (Nov. 20, 2022) U.S. Navy hospital ship USNS Comfort (T-AH 20) completed its third mission stop of Continuing Promise 2022 in Cartagena, Colombia, Nov. 20, 2022.During the ship’s nine-day visit to Colombia, Continuing Promise assisted over 4,400 patients from Cartagena and            

        11 November 2022    

                    USNS Comfort Arrives in Colombia                 
                CARTAGENA, Colombia – Hospital ship USNS Comfort (T-AH 20) arrived in Cartagena, Colombia, in support of U.S. Naval Forces Southern Command/U.S. 4th Fleet’s Continuing Promise 2022 (CP22) mission, Nov. 11.            

#####  

##### 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
* Pursuant to 5 TH CIR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH CIR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-20214 Conference Calendar

MILTON EARL CARBE Petitioner-Appellant v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:06-CV-4055
Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Milton Earl Carbe, federal prisoner # 66325-079, appealsthedismissal for lack ofjurisdiction of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he challenged his convictions for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine. In his petition, he argues that he is confined illegally because the speedy-trial waiver he executed prior to trial was invalidated by Zedner v. United States, 126 S. Ct. 1976 (2006). United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December 11, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-20214

2 The proper vehicle for attacking errors that occurred during or before sentencing is a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion

. See Tolliver v. Dobre , 211 F.3d 876, 877-78 (5th Cir. 2000). Under the savings clause of § 2255, however, if a prisoner can demonstrate that the § 2255 remedy would be “inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his detention,” he may be permitted to bring a habeas corpus claim pursuant to § 2241. Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 901 (5th Cir. 2001) (emphasis removed). The savings clause applies to a claim that is based upon a retroactively applicable Supreme Court decision which establishes that the petitioner may have been convicted ofa nonexistent offense and that was foreclosed by circuit lawat the timewhen theclaim should have been raised in the petitioner’s trial, appeal, or first § 2255 motion. Id. at 904. Carbe fails to show that Zedner, which was decided in the context of a direct appeal, applies retroactively or that it rendered any offense ofconviction “nonexistent.” Thus, he has failed to demonstrate that the § 2255 remedies were ineffective and inadequate. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. Carbe’s motions for appointment of counsel, for bail pending appeal, and to supplement the record are denied. AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.
#### JOHN SOBCZAK ET AL. *v.*BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF MERIDEN ET AL.

*Marc L. Glenn,*in support of the petition.

*Alexandria L. Voccio,*in opposition.

Decided May 17, 2005

The named plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 88 Conn. App. 99 (AC 24861), is denied.

NORCOTT, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.
EXTENSION AGREEMENT TO CONTINUE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
          BETWEEN PAUL G. VAN WAGENEN ("EXECUTIVE") AND
   POGO PRODUCING COMPANY, A DELAWARE CORPORATION ("COMPANY"),
                DATED EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 1, 1998

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

          WHEREAS, February 1, 1998, (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, 2000); 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; ad

          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
<PAGE>

          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.

          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, 1998,  is
hereby extended for an additional one-year period commencing
February 1, 1998 and ending January 31, 2000, unless such employ
ment 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, 1998.

                              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/  PAUL G. VAN WAGENEN

                              --------------------------------
# C_2009157EN.01000201.xml

| 10.7.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 157/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.7.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/2

---

Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities

2009/C 157/02

Pursuant to the second indent of Article 9(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), the Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities (2) are amended as follows:

1

2

Page 33

Page 33

Between the title of Chapter 4 (DAIRY PRODUCE; BIRDS′ EGGS; NATURAL HONEY; EDIBLE PRODUCTS OF ANIMAL ORIGIN, NOT ELSEWEHERE SPECIFIED OR INCLUDED) and ‘0401’ the following text is inserted:

DAIRY PRODUCE; BIRDS′ EGGS; NATURAL HONEY; EDIBLE PRODUCTS OF ANIMAL ORIGIN, NOT ELSEWEHERE SPECIFIED OR INCLUDED

0401

‘General

Caseinates obtained from milk casein are used, for example, as emulsifiers (sodium caseinate) or source of protein (calcium caseinate). Products containing caseinates in excess of 3 % by weight of the dry matter are excluded from headings 0401 to 0404 as those caseinates do not occur naturally in milk at this level (in particular see heading 1901).’

Page 33

Page 33

The second paragraph of the CN Explanatory Note to heading ‘0402’ is replaced by the following:

0402

‘Products containing soya lecithin (emulsifier) in excess of 3 % by weight of the dry matter are excluded from this heading.’

---

(1)  OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ C 133, 30.5.2008, p. 1.

2

---
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 87 (Friday, May 4, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 22530]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11311]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


University of Wisconsin-Madison; Notice of Decision on 
Application for Duty-Free Entry of Scientific Instrument

    This decision is made pursuant to section 6(c) of the Educational, 
Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 (Pub. L. 89-
651, 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR part 301). Related records can be viewed 
between 8:30 A.M. and 5 P.M. in Room 4211, U.S. Department of Commerce, 
14th and Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC.
    Docket Number: 01-006. Applicant: University of Wisconsin-Madison, 
Madison, WI 53706. Instrument: Photoelectron Emission Microscope, Model 
PEEM III. Manufacturer: ELMITEC Elektronenmikroskopie, Germany. 
Intended Use: See notice at 66 FR 18445, March 26, 2001.
    Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of 
equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such 
purposes as it is intended to be used, is being manufactured in the 
United States. Reasons: The foreign instrument provides aberration 
correction for high transmission and sub 10 nm resolution. The National 
Institutes of Health advises in its memorandum of March 12, 2001 that 
(1) this capability is pertinent to the applicant's intended purpose 
and (2) it knows of no domestic instrument or apparatus of equivalent 
scientific value to the foreign instrument for the applicant's intended 
use.
    We know of no other instrument or apparatus of equivalent 
scientific value to the foreign instrument which is being manufactured 
in the United States.

Gerald A. Zerdy,
Program Manager, Statutory Import Programs Staff.
[FR Doc. 01-11311 Filed 5-3-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Case 1:07-cv-05350-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05350-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05350-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05350-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05350-AKH Document 3 Filed 08/03/2007 Page 5 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05344-AKH     Document 16      Filed 01/14/2008     Page 1 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-05344-AKH     Document 16      Filed 01/14/2008     Page 2 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-05344-AKH     Document 16      Filed 01/14/2008     Page 3 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-05738-PKC-AJP Document 13 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05738-PKC-AJP Document 13 Filed 09/17/2007 Page 2 of 2
EX-10.1





 Exhibit 10.1 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE 

STONEMOR 
 AMENDED AND
RESTATED 
 2019 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN 

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT (the “First Amendment”) to the StoneMor Amended and Restated 2019 Long-Term Incentive Plan, as
amended from time to time (the “Plan”), has been adopted by StoneMor GP LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, the general partner (“General Partner”) of StoneMor Partners L.P., a Delaware limited
partnership (the “Partnership”). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Plan. 

W I T N E S S E T H: 

WHEREAS, the General Partner previously adopted the Plan; 

WHEREAS, Section 7(a) of the Plan provides that the board of directors of the Company (the “Board”) or the
Compensation, Nominating and Governance Committee of the Board may amend the Plan from time to time without the consent of any partner, Participant, other holder or beneficiary of an Award, or any other person; 

WHEREAS, the Plan has approximately 1,600,899 common units of the Partnership (“Units”) remaining available for
issuance and the Board now desires to amend the Plan to increase the number of Units reserved for delivery under the Plan by 4,500,000 Units and remove the authority of the Board to increase the number of Units reserved for delivery under the Plan
by 100,000 Units on an annual basis; and 
 WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the First Amendment shall be made effective as of
December 18, 2019 (the “Amendment Effective Date”). 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended as of
the Amendment Effective Date, as set forth below: 
 The first sentence of Section 4(a) of the Plan is hereby deleted and replaced in
its entirety with the following: 
 “Subject to adjustment as provided in Section 4(c) and Section 7, the
number of Units that may be delivered with respect to Awards under the Plan is 8,500,000 Units, and the aggregate of all such Units shall be available for the issuance of Units upon the exercise of ISOs.” 

RESOLVED FURTHER, that except as amended hereby, the Plan is specifically ratified and reaffirmed. 

[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank.]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Douglas Pacyon, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for severance because the crimes alleged in the indictment were properly joined *(see,*CPL 200.20 [2] [c]; *People v Jenkins,*50 NY2d 981) and defendant did not make a convincing showing that he had a genuine need to refrain from testifying on some of the charges or that the risk of prejudice from a joint trial was substantial *(see,*CPL 200.20 [3] [a], [b]; *People v Lane,*56 NY2d 1; *People v Mercer,*151 AD2d 1004; *People v Casiano,*138 AD2d 892, *Iv denied*72 NY2d 857; *People v Hoke,*96 AD2d 677). We have *934considered defendant’s remaining claims and find that they are either unpreserved or lack merit. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, McCarthy, J. — rape, first degree, and another charge.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Pine, JJ.
Case 1:07-cv-05712-MHD Document 7 Filed 07/20/2007 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 10.19

                                 FIRST AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                  COMDIAL CORPORATION EXECUTIVE SEVERANCE PLAN


         THIS FIRST  AMENDMENT  (the  "Amendment")  to the  Comdial  Corporation
Executive  Severance Plan (the "Plan") is made as of July 31, 1997,  pursuant to
the authority under Section 13 of the Plan for the Board of Directors of Comdial
Corpoation  to amend  the  Plan,  and  shall be  effective  as of July  31,1997.
Capitalized  terms defined in the Plan shall have the same meanings when used in
this Amendment,  unless otherwise defined herein or unless the context expressly
requires an alternate meaning.


         SECTION 1.        DEFINITIONS.

                  Section 1(h) is deleted and the  following is  substituted  in
lieu thereof:

                                  "(h)   'Executive'   shall   mean   only   the
                           individuals   employed   by  the   Company  as  Chief
                           Executive   Officer,   President,    Executive   Vice
                           President,  Senior Vice  President,  Chief  Financial
                           Officer, and Vice President,  and any other employees
                           specifically  designated by the Committee as eligible
                           under the Plan."

                  Section  1(p)(ii) is deleted and the following is  substituted
in lieu thereof:

                                  "(ii)  if  the  Executive  is  Executive  Vice
                           President,  Senior Vice  President,  Chief  Financial
                           Officer or Vice President of Engineering, on the date
                           18 months thereafter,"

         Except as amended  hereby,  all of terms of the Plan  shall  remain and
continue in full force and effect and are hereby confirmed in all respects.


                                              COMDIAL CORPORATION


                                              By:      /s/ Wayne R. Wilver
                                                       Wayne R. Wilver
                                                       Senior Vice President
#### City of New York, Respondent, v K’Hal A. Kashau, Appellant, et al., Defendants.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant K’Hal Adas Kashau appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Stolarik, J.), dated March 27, 1986, which, after a nonjury trial, granted the plaintiff leave to enter a judgment of foreclosure and dismissed the counterclaims of the appellant.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

*206The appellant concedes that it has not made any of the required payments under the mortgage note. By the terms of the mortgage agreement, this default gave the plaintiff the right to accelerate the indebtedness *(see, East N. Y. Sav. Bank v Carlinde Realty Corp.,*54 AD2d 574, *affd*42 NY2d 905). While a mortgagor may be relieved from its default where it makes a showing of waiver, estoppel, bad faith, fraud, oppressive or unconscionable conduct on the mortgagee’s part *(see, e.g., Ferlazzo v Riley,*278 NY 289), we agree with the findings of the trial court that the appellant has failed to establish any of these defenses.

We further conclude that the appellant’s counterclaims for damages by which it sought, in part, an abatement of the purchase price, were also properly dismissed. The proof offered by the appellant at the trial, which sought to establish the amount of money that it had expended on repairs to the property occasioned by the city’s neglect in the period between the auction sale and its taking possession, was wholly insufficient to support its claim. In this regard, we note that many of the checks produced by the appellant were for payment of expenses not attributable to repair. Moreover, the trial testimony indicated that much of the appellant’s work on the property was done to renovate existing structures into living quarters and was not in the way of repairs which allegedly had to be made due to vandalism of the property. In any event, the counterclaims were properly dismissed based upon the appellant’s failure to file a timely notice of claim *(see,*General Municipal Law § 50-e; *see also, Parochial Bus Sys. v Board of Educ.,*60 NY2d 539). There is no basis upon this record for holding that the city should be estopped from asserting the failure to comply with the notice of claim requirement. Mollen, P. J., Thompson, Bracken and Brown, JJ., concur.
#### Dan Pisani, Respondent, v Naomi Foxworth, Defendant. Estate of John L. Flournoy, Nonparty Appellant.

In an action, *inter alia,*for the specific performance of a contract to sell real property, the Estate of John Flournoy appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Marbach, J.), dated October 7, 1987, which denied its motion to be discharged as a stakeholder pursuant to CPLR 1006 (f) and to cancel a notice of pendency filed by the plaintiff.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court acted properly in denying the request by the Estate of John Flournoy (hereinafter the estate) for discharge pursuant to CPLR 1006 (f), inasmuch as the estate never commenced an action for interpleader *(see,*CPLR 1006 [a], [b]; McLaughlin, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C1006:l, at 5; Siegel, NY Prac § 148). The estate’s request to cancel the plaintiff’s notice of *690pendency filed on the subject property was also properly denied, as the estate is not a party to the action and has no right to move for relief therein. In any event, the plaintiff is entitled to have the notice of pendency remain on file until such time as the defendant’s interest in the premises is conveyed to him. Mangano, J. P., Eiber, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, George W. Brawley, Jr. certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Coddle Creek Financial Corp.; 

 

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

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared; 

 

(b) [Reserved]; 

 

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

 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change inthe small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: August 13, 2003