alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1

                                                                Exhibit 10.z

                                 FIFTH AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
               HUFFY CORPORATION SUPPLEMENTAL/EXCESS BENEFIT PLAN


WHEREAS, Huffy Corporation ("Employer") maintains the Huffy Corporation
Supplemental/Excess Benefit Plan, ("Plan") effective January 1, 1988, and

WHEREAS, the Employer desires to amend the Plan;

NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is amended as follows effective as of July 25, 1996:

1.     Article III, Amount of Supplemental/Excess Benefit, is hereby revised by 
       adding the following additional provision:

               Mr. Don R. Graber ("Graber"), an employee of the Employer and a
               Participant, shall have those benefits determined in accordance
               with this Plan, except as amended by Exhibit C, attached hereto
               and made a part hereof.

2.     Defined capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the
       meanings set forth in the Plan. Except as set forth herein and in the
       First Amendment, Second Amendment, Third Amendment and Fourth Amendment
       to the Plan, the Plan remains unamended and is affirmed.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Sponsor has caused this instrument to be executed as of
the 25th day of July, 1996.


                                       HUFFY CORPORATION


                                       By:  /S/ Nancy Michaud
                                            --------------------------------
                                            Nancy A. Michaud
                                            Vice President - General Counsel
                                            and Secretary
Case 1:07-cv-05341-AKH Document 15 Filed 11/06/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05341-AKH Document 15 Filed 11/06/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 28 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 28 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 2 of 2
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 Land Management

          - [Docket No. OR-957-00-1420-BJ: GP01-0171]

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The plats of survey of the following described lands were officially filed in the Oregon State Office, Portland, Oregon, on March 12, 2001.

## Willamette Meridian

### Oregon

T. 30 S., R. 5 W., accepted March 30, 2001

T. 27 S., R. 3 W., accepted March 30, 2001

T. 27 S., R. 4 W., accepted March 30, 2001

T. 13 S., R. 8 W., accepted April 4, 2001

T. 23 S., R. 7 W., accepted April 6, 2001

### Washington

T. 11 N., R. 19 E., accepted February 12, 2001

T. 15 N., R. 4 W., accepted March 15, 2001

Copies of the plat(s) may be obtained from the Oregon State Office, Bureau of Land Management, 1515 SW. 5th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97201, upon required payment. A person or party who wishes to protest against a survey must file with the State Director, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, Oregon, a notice that they wish to protest.

The above-listed plats represent dependent resurveys, a survey, and subdivision. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Bureau of Land Management, (1515 SW. 5th Avenue) P.O. Box 2965, Portland, Oregon 97208.

Dated: April 19, 2001.

Robert D. DeViney, Jr.,

Branch of Realty and Records Services.

[FR Doc. 01-11693 Filed 5-8-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-33-M
Case 1:07-cv-04415-AKH Document 13 Filed 07/01/2008 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-04415-AKH Document 13 Filed 07/01/2008 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-04415-AKH Document 13 Filed 07/01/2008 Page 3 of 3
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leonard Eugene Price, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and new trial granted. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted, after a jury trial, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree (Penal Law § 220.21) and conspiracy in the second degree (Penal Law § 105.15) based upon his constructive possession of 15 ounces of heroin found in a locker at a bus station in downtown Buffalo. The principal prosecution witness at defendant’s trial was John Glenn, the courier who transported the heroin from Los Angeles to Buffalo. At trial, the court was informed that defendant’s trial attorney had previously represented Glenn on criminal charges arising out of possession of this same contraband. Despite being made aware of this fact, from which *969an apparent conflict of interest could be inferred, the court failed to conduct an inquiry to ascertain whether defendant was aware of the potential risks involved in the apparent conflict and whether he had knowingly chosen that course *(see, People v Maceróla,*47 NY2d 257, 263; *People v Gomberg,*38 NY2d 307, 313-314). The court’s failure to make inquiry and obtain the informed consent of defendant denied defendant his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel *(People v McDonald,*68 NY2d 1, 8; *People v Mattison,*67 NY2d 462, 468-469). Accordingly, defendant’s conviction must be reversed and a new trial granted.

In view of our decision, we do not reach the other issues raised on appeal. (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, D’Amico, J. — criminal possession of controlled substance, first degree; conspiracy, second degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Balio and Davis, JJ.
(82 South. 7)

#### MORGAN v. LEWIS.

(6 Div. 604.)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

May 22, 1919.

1. Specific Performance <&wkey;6S — Enforcement by Vendor.

The remedy of specific performance is available to a vendor of land.

2. Specieio Performance <&wkey;127(l) —Decree.

An appropriate decree may enter requiring specific performance on the part of a vendee by a fixed time after vendor has deposited conveyance, and in case of failure of vendee it may thereupon be contingently decreed that the land be sold to satisfy vendor’s demand and that execution issue against vendee to enforce payment of unpaid balance of purchase price and interest that the net proceeds of the sale fails to satisfy.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Hugh A. Locke, Judge.

Bill by John Lewis against W. B. Morgan. Decree for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Edgar Allen, of Birmingham, for appellant. Allen & Fisk, of Birmingham, for appellee.

McCLELLAN, J.

[1, 2] Bill by a vendor (appellee) to compel specific performance on the part of the vendee (appellant) of a complete written contract to purchase certain lands owned by the vendor. The appellant insists here, as he did in the court below, that this remedy is not available to a vendor, and that an enforceable decree in the premises cannot be soundly contrived. Both reason and authority confirm the correctness of the view entertained by the trial court, viz.: That the remedy by specific performance is available to a vendor of land; that the nature of the subject-matter of the contract, real estate, invests the vendor with the right to elect either to sue at law for damages for the vendee’s breach of the contract or to invoke equity to compel specific performance of the contract of purchase by the vendee; and that appropriate decree may enter requiring specific performance on the part of the vendee, by a fixed time, after the vendor has deposited in the court, for the vendee, a conveyance to him of a good title to the land; failing acceptance of the deed and payment of the purchase price and interest by the vendee, it may thereupon be contingently decreed that the land be sold to satisfy the vendor’s demand, and that execution against the vendee issue to enforce the payment of the unpaid balance of the purchase price and interest that the net proceeds of the sale fail to satisfy. 6 Pom. Eq. Jur. f 747; Fry’s Spec. Perf. (5th Ed.) § 72; 36 Cyc. pp. 552, 565, 566; 3 Elliott on Contracts, § 2317, p. 496. There is no statute in this state operating to qualify or deny the vendor’s remedy by specific performance in such circumstances.

The court below so concluded. Its decree is affirmed.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and SAYRE and GARDNER. JJ.. concur.
Opinion issued September 27, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-16-00622-CR

———————————

IN RE MIGUEL ANGEL YEPEZ, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Miguel Angel Yepez has filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging 

the trial court’s June 20, 2016 order compelling him to submit to an HIV test under 

Article 21.31 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure.1 

 

1 The underlying case is The State of Texas v. Miguel Angel Yepez, cause number 

1412836, pending in the 174th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the 

Honorable Ruben Guerrero presiding.
2

Because Yepez has not shown he is entitled to relief, we deny the petition. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Higley and Huddle.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
Clear All

        13 August 2019    

#                     Virginia Peninsula Chamber of Commerce Leadership Forum                 

                Remarks as delivered by Adm. Christopher W. Grady, commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command.             

#####  

##### 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
Case 1:07-cv-04356-AKH Document 4 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-04356-AKH Document 4 Filed 07/24/2007 Page 2 of 2
[No. 13464.

*En Banc.*

August 8, 1917.]

#### The State of Washington, *on the Relation of Puget Sound & Willapa Harbor Railway Company, Appellant,*v. Northern Pacific Railway Company *et al.,*Respondents.2

Appeal from a judgment of the superior court for Lewis county, Rice, J., entered April 17, 1916, affirming an order of the public service commission, after a hearing before the court.

Reversed.

*F. M. Dudley,*for appellant.

*George T. Reid, J. W. Quick,*and *L. B. da Ponte,*for respondent Northern Pacific Railway Company.

*The Attorney General*and *Scott Z. Henderson, Assistant,*for respondent Public Service Commission.

2

Reported in 166 Pac. 793.

On Rehearing.

Per Curiam.

Upon a rehearing *En Banc,*a majority of the court still adhere to the opinion heretofore filed herein as reported in 94 Wash. 10, 161 Pac. 850, and for the reasons there stated, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded with instructions to follow the order of the departmental opinion.
15 August 2019    

#                     2019 AFCEA/USNI West Conference                 

                Remarks as delivered by Adm. Christopher W. Grady, commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command.             

        13 August 2019    

#                     Virginia Peninsula Chamber of Commerce Leadership Forum                 

                Remarks as delivered by Adm. Christopher W. Grady, commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command.             

        17 January 2019    

#                     2019 Surface Navy Association (SNA) Symposium                 

                Remarks as delivered by Adm. Christopher W. Grady, commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command.             

        05 November 2018    

#                     2018 Norfolk Naval Shipyard (NNSY) Apprenticeship Program Graduation                 

                Remarks as delivered by Adm. Christopher W. Grady, commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command.             

        24 August 2018    

#                     Commander, U.S. 2nd Fleet Establishment Ceremony                 

                Remarks as delivered by Adm. Christopher W. Grady, commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command.             

Previous                              - 1
                              - 2
                              - 3
                              - 4
 Next 

#####  

##### 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
Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 4 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 1 of 4Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 4 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 2 of 4Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 4 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 3 of 4Case 1:07-cv-01543-AKH Document 4 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 4 of 4
#### Arthur O. ARMSTRONG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Quentin T. SUMNER, Senior Court Judge, Nash County; Rachel Joyner, Clerk, Superior Court, Nash County, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 13-1420.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: April 25, 2013.

Decided: May 10, 2013.

Arthur O. Armstrong, Appellant Pro Se.

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Arthur O. Armstrong appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Armstrong v. Sumner,*No. 5:12-cv-00425-F, 2013 WL 556209 (E.D.N.C. Feb. 12, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this *164court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 27 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 1 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 27 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 2 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 27 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 3 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 27 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 4 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 27 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 5 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 27 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 6 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 27 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 7 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 27 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 8 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 27 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 9 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 27 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 10 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-05376-AKH Document 13-2 Filed 10/11/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 31-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 1 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 31-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 2 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 31-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 3 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 31-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 4 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 31-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 5 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 31-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 6 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 31-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 7 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 31-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 8 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 31-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 9 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 31-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 10 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 31-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 11 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 31-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 12 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 31-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 13 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 31-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 14 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 31-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 15 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 31-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 16 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 31-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 17 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 31-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 18 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 31-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 19 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 31-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 20 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 31-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 21 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 31-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 22 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 31-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 23 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 31-3 Filed 12/06/2007 Page 24 of 24
Case 1:07-cv-05763-JSR Document 8 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05763-JSR Document 8 Filed 07/30/2007 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

------------------------------------------------------------ x

MOHAMMED AYUB,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALBERTO GONZALES, et al.,

Defendants.

ECF CASE

07 Civ. 5725 (NRB)

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE

------------------------------------------------------------ x

TO: Clerk of Court

United States District Court

Southern District of New York

The undersigned attorney respectfully requests the Clerk to note his appearance in this case

and to add him as a Filing User to whom Notices of Electronic Filing will be transmitted in this case.

Date: New York, New York

July 10, 2007

Respectfully submitted,

MICHAEL J. GARCIA

United States Attorney for the

Southern District of New York

By: /s/ 

F. JAMES LOPREST, JR.

Special Assistant United States Attorney

86 Chambers Street, 3 Floor rd

New York, New York 10007

Telephone: (212) 637-2728

Facsimile: (212) 637-2786 

Email: james.loprest@usdoj.gov

TO: Heidi J. Meyers, Esq.

20 Vesey Street, Suite 200

New York, NY 10007

Case 1:07-cv-05725-NRB Document 2 Filed 07/10/2007 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 8, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23309-23310]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11534]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 3653]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for 
ExhibitionDeterminations: ``Spirit of an Age: Nineteenth Century 
Paintings From the Nationalgalerie, Berlin''

DEPARTMENT: United States Department of State.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985, 22 U.S.C.

[[Page 23310]]

2459), the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 
1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999, as 
amended, I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the 
exhibition ``Spirit of an Age: Nineteenth Century Paintings from the 
Nationalgalerie, Berlin,'' imported from abroad for the temporary 
exhibition without profit within the United States, are of cultural 
significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement 
with the foreign lender. I also determine that the exhibition or 
display of the exhibit objects at the National Gallery of Art, 
Washington, DC, from on or about June 10, 2001 to on or about September 
3, 2001, is in the national interest. Public Notice of these 
Determinations is ordered to be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Carol Epstein, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202/
619-6981). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-44, 301 4th 
Street, S.W., Room 700, Washington, D.C. 20547-0001.

    Dated: April 20, 2001.
Helena Kane Finn,
Acting Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, United 
States Department of State.
[FR Doc. 01-11534 Filed 5-7-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-08-P
Case 1:07-cv-05358-AKH Document 38 Filed 07/01/2008 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05358-AKH Document 38 Filed 07/01/2008 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05358-AKH Document 38 Filed 07/01/2008 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05358-AKH Document 38 Filed 07/01/2008 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05358-AKH Document 38 Filed 07/01/2008 Page 5 of 5
[No. 13839.

Department One.

August 17, 1917.]

#### Louis Hensen, *Appellant,*v. W. H. Peter, *Respondent.**1*

Appeal from an order of the superior court for King county, Jurey, J., entered September 27, 1916, denying confirmation of an execution sale, upon sustaining objections thereto.

Reversed.

*McBurney & O’Connor,*for appellant.

*Cochran*& *Plummer*and *Van Dyke & Thomas,*for respondent.

1

Reported in 166 Pac. 1119.

On Petition for Rehearing.

Per Curiam.

Respondent has filed a petition for a rehearing *En Banc*of this case, and suggests that, in the event his petition should be denied, the court should fix a reasonable time, not less than thirty days, within which respondent may redeem the property affected by this litigation, by paying to appellant the amount of the judgment, with interest and costs. Our attention is directed to the fact that, during the pendency of the case in this court and prior to the filing of the opinion, the period of redemption provided by Rem. Code, § 594, expired, the time limited by that statute beginning to run from the date of the execution sale.

We have again considered the question presented by this appeal and are satisfied with the opinion heretofore filed in the case and reported in 95 Wash. 628, 164 Pac. 512. The appeal was prosecuted from an order of the superior court denying appellant’s motion for confirmation of an execution sale of real property. The right of the respondent t'o redeem the property from the sale, in the event the judgment of the lower court should be reversed, is not presented by the record, and therefore is not properly before the court for consideration. Respondent’s remedy, if any, is by application to the superior court.

The petition is denied.