alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DISMISS; Opinion issued February 13, 2013 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 12
- 00944
- CV IN THE INTEREST OF P .E., C.E., C.E., AND S.E., CHILDREN
On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF
- 10
- 0 5399
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Moseley, Francis and Lang Opinion by Justice Francis This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of appellee on appellee ’s sworn account. Appellant filed an affidavit of indigence, seeking to proceed in the appeal without advance payment of costs. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.1(a)(2). The affidavit was contested, and the contest sustained by the trial court. See id. 20.1(i). On appellant ’s motion, we reviewed the trial court’s order and concluded, by opinion issued November 1, 2012, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the contest. See In re P.E. , No. 05

- 12

- 00944

- CV, 2012 WL 5378250, at *2 (Tex. App

. — Dallas Nov. 1, 2012, no pet.) (mem. op.). Accordingly, appellant was responsible for paying the costs associated with the appeal, including the filing fee. See T EX

. R.
A PP

. P. 20.1(i)(4), 20.1(n). By letter dated January 18, 2013, we directed appell ant to pay, within ten days, the $175 filing fee. We cautioned appellant that failure to pay the fee would result in dismissal of the2 appeal without further notice. To date, appellant has not paid the fee or otherwise communicated
with the Court. Accord ingly, we dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3 ( c ).

120944F.P05 /Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE3 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

IN THE INTEREST OF P .E., C.E., C.E., AND S.E., CHILDREN
No. 05

- 12

- 00944

- CV On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas (Trial Court Cause No. DF

- 10

- 05399). Opinion delivered by Justice Francis, Justices Moseley and Lang participating. In accordance with the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal. We ORDER that appellee Dan L. Wyde recover his costs of this appeal from appellant Felix Echendu.

Judgment entered February 13, 2013.

/Molly Francis/ MOLLY FRANCIS JUSTICE
Summary of Deferred Compensation Plan



 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 UNIGENE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN 
 FOR DRS. LEVY 
  
 On
December 14, 2005, the Board of Directors of Unigene Laboratories, Inc. (“Unigene”) approved the adoption of a non-qualified deferred compensation (“NQDC”) arrangement for Dr. Ronald and Dr. Warren Levy. Because
the IRS regulations regarding NQDC arrangements are in a state of flux, the terms of the NQDC arrangement will be finalized in 2006. However, the major features of the NQDC arrangement are as follows: 
  

	 	•	 	Contributions. 

  

	 	•	 	Unigene would agree to credit a book account with $25,000 per year on the January 1st of such year beginning on January 1, 2006 and ending on January 1, 2014 for each participant. 

  

	 	•	 	Unigene would not be obligated to actually fund an account. 

  

	 	•	 	The credits to the accounts would be made without regard to whether either participant remains employed by or is otherwise providing services to Unigene. 


 

	 	•	 	The credits to the accounts would be 100% vested. 

  

	 	•	 	No additional credits would be made to the accounts (including no contributions by either Dr. Levy). 

  

	 	•	 	Upon the death of a participant, any remaining contributions would be made to his account. 

  

	 	•	 	In the event of a “change in control” of Unigene, all remaining contributions shall be made to each participant’s account. 

  

	 	•	 	Earnings. Each participant would have the ability to direct the investments of the accounts among available investments (mutual funds, stocks, etc.). A third-party
administrator (such as, for example, the company’s 401(k) provider) could track the earnings and losses in each participant’s account. 

  

	 	•	 	Distributions. The entire value of the account (including earnings/losses) would be distributed as follows: 

  

	 	•	 	Upon attainment of age 75 – 25% of balance, upon attainment of age 76, 33.33% of remaining balance, upon attainment of age 77, 50% of remaining balance, and the remainder of
the balance upon attainment of age 78. 

  

	 	•	 	In the event of a participant’s death or disability, 50% of the participant’s account balance (or remaining balance if distributions have already begun) shall be
distributed as soon as practicable following, as applicable, his death to his beneficiary or his disability and the remainder distributed on the first anniversary, as applicable of his death to his beneficiary or disability.


  

	 	•	 	Distributions could not be otherwise deferred or accelerated. 

  

	 	•	 	Beneficiary. Each participant can designate one or more beneficiaries, which can be contingent beneficiaries and/or natural persons or trust. The designation shall be made on
a written form as designated by Unigene.
Case 1:07-cv-05343-AKH Document 23 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-05343-AKH Document 23 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 2 of 3Case 1:07-cv-05343-AKH Document 23 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 3 of 3
#### Harvey H. Pfenning et al., Plaintiffs, v Agri-Business Brokerage Corp. et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, et al., Defendants. William Perry et al., Third-Party Defendants-Appellants.

Order affirmed with costs for reasons stated in decision at Supreme Court, Rath, J.

All concur, except Lawton, J., who dissents and votes to reverse, in the following memorandum.

Lawton, J. (dissenting).

I respectfully dissent. A claim for contribution will lie only when the culpable parties are subject to liability "for the same personal injury, injury to property or wrongful death” (CPLR 1401). For this claim to be sustained, therefore, the parties must have contributed to the same injury *(see, Nassau Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v Facilities Dev. Corp., 71*NY2d 599, 603). Here, plaintiffs, in addition to claims for breach of contract and fraud, seek damages from defendants for the injury they suffered as a result of defendants’ negligence in failing to procure insurance coverage for their barn and its contents, which were destroyed in a fire. Defendants seek contribution from third-party defendants based on their alleged negligence in causing the barn fire. Third-party defendants’ conduct had nothing to do with defendants’ failure to provide insurance. Likewise, defendants’ conduct did not cause or contribute to the fire. The loss caused by defendants was the financial damage plaintiffs sustained by defendants’ failure to provide contractual indemnity, not the *922loss incurred by having a barn destroyed by fire *(see, Nassau Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v Facilities Dev. Corp., supra).*The amount of damages resulting from the fire is but the measure of plaintiffs’ damages in this regard. The injuries under these causes of action are separate and distinct and could result in dual recoveries by the plaintiffs *(see, Alexandra Rest, v New Hampshire Ins. Co.,*272 App Div 346, *affd*297 NY 858). Defendants’ contribution claim should therefore be dismissed *(see, Nassau Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v Facilities Dev. Corp., supra; Jakobleff v Cerrato, Sweeney & Cohn,*97 AD2d 786).

An insurer which honors its obligation under its policy of insurance by indemnifying its insured for a fire loss is not entitled to claim contribution under CPLR 1401 from a third-party tort-feasor. An insurer’s only remedy in this regard is that of subrogation. Defendant, which allegedly failed to honor its obligations to provide insurance coverage to plaintiffs, should not be placed in a more favorable position than that of an insurer that rightfully provides coverage, by permitting it to recover part or all of its loss payment through a contribution claim against the third-party defendants. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Rath, J. — dismiss complaint.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Lawton, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Indian Affairs

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice of approved off-track wagering Tribal-State compact. 

# SUMMARY:

                        Pursuant to section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA), Pub. L. 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2710, the Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the                         **Federal Register**                        , notice of approved Tribal-State Compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class III gaming activities on Indian lands. The Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs (Management), Department of the Interior, through his delegated authority, has approved the Tribal-State Compact between the Absentee Shawnee Tribe and the State of Oklahoma, which was executed on March 28, 2001.                    

# DATES:

This action is effective May 4, 2001.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George T. Skibine, Director, Office of Indian Gaming Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.

Dated: May 1, 2001.

James H. McDivitt,

Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs (Management).

[FR Doc. 01-11418  Filed 5-2-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-02-M
Case 1:07-cv-05370-AKH Document 15-2 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05370-AKH Document 15-2 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05370-AKH Document 15-2 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05370-AKH Document 15-2 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05370-AKH Document 15-2 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 5 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

IN RE LOWER MANHATTAN DISASTER 

SITE LITIGATION 

 21 MC 102 (AKH) 

 

FREDDY CONFORME, 07-CV-05552 (AKH) 

 

Plaintiff, 

 

-againstNOTICE OF DEFENDANT VERIZON 

NEW YORK INC.’S ADOPTION OF 

ANSWER TO MASTER COMPLAINT 

VERIZON NEW YORK INC., 

et al.

 

 

Defendants. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendant Verizon New York Inc. (“Verizon”) 

hereby adopts as its Answer in the instant case its Answer to Plaintiffs’ Master Complaint which 

was filed and served on October 16, 2007 in the matter of In re World Trade Center Lower 

Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). In accordance with Case Management 

Order No. 4, the allegations of the instant Check-Off Complaint are deemed to be denied. 

Verizon also incorporates by reference all averments and denials of its Answer to Plaintiffs’ 

Master Complaint as though same were more fully set forth herein at length. Verizon further 

adopts the responses contained in any Amended Answer filed and served herein. 

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Verizon reserves the right to file and 

serve an amended answer and specifically reserves the right to interpose cross-claims and thirdparty claims. 

WHEREFORE, Verizon demands judgment dismissing the above-captioned 

action as against Verizon, together with its cost and disbursements. 

Case 1:07-cv-05552-AKH Document 10 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 1 of 2
 2 

Dated: November 26, 2007 /s/ Eric F. Leon 

Eric F. Leon 

Lee Ann Stevenson 

Andrew Dunlap 

Michael D. Reisman 

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 

Citigroup Center 

153 East 53rd Street 

New York, New York 10022-4611 

Telephone: (212) 446-4800 

Facsimile: (212) 446-4900 

Attorneys for Defendant Verizon New York Inc.

TO: Christopher LoPalo, Esq. 

WORBY GRONER EDELMAN & NAPOLI BERN, LLP 

115 Broadway, 12th Floor 

New York, New York 10006 

 Robert A. Grochow, Esq. 

ROBERT A. GROCHOW, P.C. 

233 Broadway, 5th Floor 

New York, New York 10279 

 Gregory J. Cannata, Esq. 

LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY J. CANNATA 

233 Broadway, 5th Floor 

New York, New York 10279 

Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs 

 Marc D. Weinblatt, Esq. 

SANDERS, SANDERS, BLOCK, WOYICK, VIENER & GROSSMAN, P.C. 

100 Herricks Road 

Mineola, New York 11501 

 David Kremen, Esq. 

OSHMAN & MIRISOLA, LLP 

42 Broadway, 10th Floor 

New York, NY 10004 

 

All Defense Counsel (via ECF)

Case 1:07-cv-05552-AKH Document 10 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 10.32


             SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE WARWICK COMMUNITY BANCORP, INC.
                          EMPLOYEE STOCK OWNERSHIP PLAN


Pursuant to section 1.3 of the Warwick Community Bancorp, Inc. Employee Stock
Ownership Plan ("Plan"), the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

1.       ARTICLE I - Section 1.3 of the Plan, the definition of "Allocation
         Compensation," shall be amended by adding the following clause after
         the phrase "pursuant to section 6041(a) of the Code,":

                  ; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that, effective as of January 1, 1999,
                  the term Allocation Compensation shall not include any amounts
                  attributable to the vesting of awards of stock under the
                  Recognition and Retention Plan of Warwick Community Bancorp,
                  Inc. or to the exercise of stock options under the Stock
                  Option Plan of Warwick Community Bancorp, Inc. or otherwise.

2.       ARTICLE IX - Effective as of January 1, 1999, the first sentence of
         section 9.3, FORFEITURES ON TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT, is amended in
         its entirety to read as follows:

         Upon the termination of employment of a Participant or Former
         Participant for any reason other than death, Disability or Retirement,
         that portion of the balance credited to his Account which is not vested
         at the date of such termination shall be forfeited as of the first day
         of the calendar year immediately following the Plan Year in which such
         termination of employment occurs, unless the Participant or Former
         Participant is re-employed prior to such forfeiture.

3.       In all other respects, the Plan shall continue in effect in accordance
         with its terms.

                                               WARWICK COMMUNITY BANCORP, INC.



                                               By:/s/ Timothy A. Dempsey
                                                  ----------------------------
                                                  Timothy A. Dempsey
                                                  Chairman of the Board and
                                                   Chief Executive Officer


Attest:



By:/s/ Nancy Sobotor-Littell
   ------------------------------------
   Nancy Sobotor-Littell
   Corporate Secretary and Director


                                   Page 1 of 1
Subsidiaries of the Company

                                 Percentage  Jurisdiction of  Immediate
Name                               Owned     Incorporation    Parent
----                             ----------  ---------------  ---------


Benjamin Moore & Co., Limited        83.5    Canada           Company

Technical Coatings Co. Limited      100.0    Canada           Benjamin Moore & 
                                                              Co., Limited

Technical Coatings Co.              100.0    Pennsylvania     Company

Alachua Tung Oil Company            100.0    Florida          Company

Benjamin Moore & Co (NZ) Limited    100.0    New Zealand      Company

Benjamin Moore Pacific Limited       51.0    New Zealand      Benjamin Moore & 
                                                              Co (NZ) Limited




                                       43
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

PATRICIO ALEJANDRO CASTANEDA,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 

 State.

 

§

§

§

 

§

§

§ 

 

§

'

'

No. 08-14-00192-CR

Appeal from the

41st Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20100D04935)

 O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant’s fourth motion for extension of time to file the brief 

until January 7, 2015. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE 

APPELLANT’S BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Charles L. Roberts, the Appellant’s Attorney, prepare 

the Appellant’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before January 7, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 5

th day of January, 2015.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, CJ, Rodriguez and Hughes, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David Medina, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Levine, J.), rendered December 5, 1984, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(People v Benzinger,*36 NY2d 29), we find the evidence against the defendant was legally sufficient. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, and bearing in mind that the credibility of witnesses and the weight to be accorded their testimony are generally matters for resolution by the jury *(see, People v Bauer,*113 AD2d 543, *lv denied*67 NY2d 648), we are satisfied that the defendant’s guilt was established beyond a reasonable doubt and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]; *see also, People v Centino,*133 AD2d 776 [decided herewith]).

The prosecutor’s cross-examination regarding the defendant’s homosexuality was not designed to humiliate him or to elicit irrelevant and prejudicial material, as the defendant contends. The defendant claimed that he and the complainant were involved in a prior homosexual relationship and that he had been invited into the burglarized apartment, all of which was denied by the complainant.

Finally, the prosecutor’s summation can be evaluated fairly only in comparison to that of the defense *(People v Singleton,*121 AD2d 752, *lv denied*68 NY2d 918). In this case, the defendant challenged the credibility of the People’s witness *784and vouched for his own witnesses. The record indicates that the prosecutor’s comments constituted a fair response to the defendant’s summation and did not deny him a fair trial *(see, People v Centino, supra; People v Hopkins,*58 NY2d 1079, 1083). Kunzeman, J. P., Kooper, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 16, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3604-3605]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1188]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics: Meeting

    Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Department of 
Health and Human Services announces the following advisory committee 
meeting.
    Name: National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics (NCVHS), 
Subcommittee on Standards and Security.
    Time and Date: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., February 1, 2001 or ; 8:30 a.m. 
to 2 p.m., February 2, 2001.
    Place: Room 705A, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence 
Avenure, SW, Washington, DC 20201.
    Status: Open.
    Purpose: The purpose of this hearing is to monitor to the progress 
of implementation of the Administrative Simplification Provisions of 
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and 
identified issues that need to be addressed to insure successful 
implementation. Specific hearing topics for the first day include: the 
Designated Standard Maintenance Organization's change process; data and 
transaction standard issues identify by the Healthcare Industry to 
date; Institutional Provider NDC code set concerns; and a status report 
from the standard developers on digital/electronic signature standards. 
The second half-day session will include a discussion of the 
Subcommittee's next steps related to Patient's Medical Record 
Information standards and the annual NCVHS report to Congress on HIPAA 
Administrative Simplification implementation progress.
    Notice: In the interest of security, the Department has instituted 
stringent procedures for entrance to the Hubert H. Humphrey building by 
non-government employees. Thus, persons without a government 
identification card will have to have the guard call for an escort to 
the meeting.

Contact Person for More Information: Substantive program information as 
well as summaries of meetings and a roster of committee members may be 
obtained from J. Michael Fitzmaurice, Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor for 
Information Technology, Agency for Health Care Research and Quality, 
2101 East Jefferson Street, #600, Rockville, MD 20852, phone: (301) 
594-3938; or Marjorie S. Greenberg, Executive Secretary, NCVHS, 
National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, Room 1100, Presidential Building, 6525 Belcrest Road, 
Hyattsville, Maryland 20782, telephone (301) 458-4245. Information also 
is available on the NCVHS home page of the HHS website: http://www.ncvhs.hhs.gov/ where an agenda for the meeting will be posted when 
available.


[[Page 3605]]


    Dated: January 8, 2001.
James Scanlon,
Director, Division of Data Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary 
for Planning and Evaluation.
[FR Doc. 01-1188 Filed 1-12-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4151-05-M
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.7

                              ROBINSON NUGENT, INC.
                        SUMMARY OF ROBINSON NUGENT, INC.
                        BONUS PLAN TO EXECUTIVE OFFICERS



     The Board of Directors has adopted a bonus plan for executive officers and
key employees for fiscal year 1998.  The terms of the plan are the same as the
Company's bonus plan for the prior year, or fiscal year 1997.  Executive
officers are eligible for a first tier bonus award provided the consolidated
pretax income of the Company and subsidiaries for fiscal year 1998 exceeds the
reported pretax income for fiscal year 1997.  A second tier, or added, bonus
award is payable to executive officers provided the consolidated pretax income
for fiscal year 1998 exceeds the pretax income objectives outlined in the fiscal
year 1998 annual financial plan.  The bonus awards under both tiers are
predicated upon a formula whereby bonuses increase in proportion to the level of
pretax income over the prior year and financial plan objectives, respectively. 
The maximum bonus award for executive officers approximates 26 percent to 36
percent of base compensation.  Bonus awards for first tier financial performance
were made to executive officers up to 10% of base compensation in fiscal 1997.


                                       37
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 24-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-01538-AKH Document 24-3 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 2 of 2