alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Installations and Environment Menu**

                    - Installations and Environment Home
                    - NEPA Projects
                    - At-Sea Initiatives                        - At-Sea Training
                      - Environmental Planning
                    - Ashore Initiatives                        - Home Basing and Homeporting
                      - Field Carrier Landing Practice (FCLP) 
                      - Aircraft Noise Modeling
                      - Naval Range Complex                           - Range Clearance
                        - Range Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (RAICUZ) Program
                    - Operational Energy
                    - U.S. Navy Stewards of the Sea Outreach Program

**Welcome**

----

Together, the 900,000 Sailors, Marines and civilians in the U.S. Department of the Navy form the world's most formidable naval force capable of maritime defense, major combat operations, and disaster relief. *To maintain military readiness, we must train the way we fight*.The Navy conducts routine training, research and development, and testing on aircraft, vessels, and sophisticated systems, such as weapons, sensors, and related equipment to ensure assets are ready when duty calls. These activities are known as military readiness activities and must be as realistic, rigorous, and as comprehensive as possible in order to develop and sharpen the skills that our Sailors and Marines need to prevail in combat and other real-world situations. These skills are specialized, highly perishable, and demand frequent practice.The Navy complies with all applicable environmental laws and regulations while conducting military readiness activities at-sea and on land ranges, ensuring a ready trained operational force. The Navy's environmental initiatives at U.S. Fleet Forces Command (USFFC) are served by the Fleet Installations and Environmental Division (N46). N46 develops and executes policy and procedures, and manages USFFC environmental planning and compliance programs in support of the fleet. These programs address range sustainment, home basing/homeporting, at-sea compliance, energy initiatives, and encroachment response in support of current and future fleet readiness, all while striving to ensure the Navy remains ‘Stewards of the Sea.’ 

 

#####  

##### 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-05556-AKH Document 3-2 Filed 07/18/2007 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

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

Klever Vasquez

Plaintiffs,

- against -

NOMURA HOLDING AMERICA INC. and

NOMURA SECURITIES INTERNATIONAL, INC.

et al. (see Defendants’ List)

Defendants.

Index No.: 07-cv-04520-AKH

(AKH)

NOTICE OF THE NOMURA

PARTIES’ ADOPTION OF

ANSWER TO MASTER

COMPLAINT

_________________________

1:21-MC-00102

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

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendants NOMURA PARTIES (Nomura

Holding America Inc., Nomura Securities International Inc.) as and for their responses to

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

the Master Complaint filed herein and applicable to the above captioned matter hereby

adopts all of the responses and all of the affirmative defenses contained in the Answer

to the Master Complaint dated, filed and served July 31, 2007, In re World Trade Center

Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC102 (AKH). The responses to all of the

allegations in the Master Complaint are adopted herein and are applicable to the CheckOff Complaint served and filed herein.

Case 1:07-cv-04520-AKH Document 25 Filed 10/26/2007 Page 1 of 3
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Defendant, NOMURA PARTIES,

reserves the right to serve and file an amended answer and specifically reserves the

right to interpose a cross claim against any and all co-defendants.

PLAEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Defendant, NOMURA PARTIES, also

adopts all affirmative defenses and the jury demand therein.

WHEREFORE, Defendant, NOMURA PARTIES, demands judgment dismissing

the above captioned action against it along with the costs and disbursements of this

action.

Case 1:07-cv-04520-AKH Document 25 Filed 10/26/2007 Page 2 of 3
Dated: September 17, 2007

New York, New York

Yours, etc.

STRONGIN ROTHMAN & ABRAMS, LLP

s/ Dror M. Bikel

________________________________

Dror M. Bikel ESQ.

Attorneys for Defendant

NOMURA HOLDING AMERICA, INC.

50 Broadway, Suite 2003

New York, NY 10004

(212) 931-8300

Case 1:07-cv-04520-AKH Document 25 Filed 10/26/2007 Page 3 of 3
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 10.y

                            TWELFTH AMENDMENT TO THE
               HUFFY CORPORATION SUPPLEMENTAL/EXCESS BENEFIT PLAN


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

         WHEREAS, a change in the method for calculating actuarially equivalent
benefits under the Huffy Corporation Retirement Plan (the "Retirement Plan") has
caused inconsistencies between the definition of the actuarially equivalent
benefits in the Retirement Plan and this Plan; and

         WHEREAS, the Sponsor desires to amend the Plan to resolve this
inconsistency, and the President or Secretary of the Sponsor is authorized to
adopt such amendment;

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Sponsor adopts the following amendment to the Plan
effective as of January 1, 2001:


I.       Exhibit B to the Plan shall be amended by restating the last sentence
         of paragraph (c) under the definition of "Actuarial Equivalent" to read
         as follows:

                  The mortality table used to calculate lump sum payments under
                  Article V shall be the "applicable mortality table" provided
                  for in Section 417(e)(3)(A)(ii)(I) of the Code, or such other
                  table as may be designated by the Sponsor from time to time.


II.      In all other respects, the Plan shall remain unchanged.


         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Sponsor has caused this instrument to be
executed as of this 4th day of June, 2001.



                                        HUFFY CORPORATION


                                        By:  /s/ Nancy A. Michaud
                                             ___________________________________

                                        Title: Vice President - General
                                               Counsel and Secretary
                                             ___________________________________
Case 1:07-cv-05773-LAK-GWG Document 19 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 1 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05773-LAK-GWG Document 19 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 2 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05773-LAK-GWG Document 19 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 3 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05773-LAK-GWG Document 19 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 4 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05773-LAK-GWG Document 19 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 5 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05773-LAK-GWG Document 19 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 6 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05773-LAK-GWG Document 19 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 7 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05773-LAK-GWG Document 19 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 8 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05773-LAK-GWG Document 19 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 9 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05773-LAK-GWG Document 19 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 10 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05773-LAK-GWG Document 19 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 11 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05773-LAK-GWG Document 19 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 12 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05773-LAK-GWG Document 19 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 13 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05773-LAK-GWG Document 19 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 14 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05773-LAK-GWG Document 19 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 15 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05773-LAK-GWG Document 19 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 16 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05773-LAK-GWG Document 19 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 17 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05773-LAK-GWG Document 19 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 18 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05773-LAK-GWG Document 19 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 19 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05773-LAK-GWG Document 19 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 20 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05773-LAK-GWG Document 19 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 21 of 21
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 22-8 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 1 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 22-8 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 2 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 22-8 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 3 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 22-8 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 4 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 22-8 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 5 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 22-8 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 6 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 22-8 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 7 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 22-8 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 8 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 22-8 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 9 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 22-8 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 10 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 22-8 Filed 09/17/2008 Page 11 of 11
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 21 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 1 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 21 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 2 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 21 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 3 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 21 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 4 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 21 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 5 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 21 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 6 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 21 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 7 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-17 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 1 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-17 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 2 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-17 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 3 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-17 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 4 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-17 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 5 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-17 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 6 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-17 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 7 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-17 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 8 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-17 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 9 of 10
Case 1:07-cv-05794-MGC Document 17-17 Filed 09/10/2008 Page 10 of 10
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
Case No. 5D 2 2

- 2160 LT Case No. 22

- CF

- 000261

- A

_____________________________
I AN J OSEPH K ING , Appellant,

v.

S TATE O F F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Citrus County

. Joel D. Fritton , Judge

. Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Ali L. Hansen, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Bonnie Jean Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

September 26, 2023

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
W ALLI S , J AY , and M AC I VER , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________
## Court**of Antonio,** **October 25,** **2013 NO.04-12-00669-CR** **Donald W.** **Cox. Sr..** **Appellant v.** **The Slate** **of Texas.** **Appellee Trial** **Court Case** **No. CR-12-036** **The Court** **has reviewed** **the record** **and briefs** **in this** **appeal and** **has determined** **that oral** **argument will** **not significantly** **aid il** **in determining** **the legal** **and factual** **issues presented** **in the** **appeal. See** **Tex. R.** **Api>. P.** **39.S. Therefore,** **all requests** **for oral** **argument are** **denied, and** **the cause** **is advanced** **for ON** **BRIEFS submission** **on December** **10. 2013.** **to the** **following panel:** 

### Justice**Marion. Justice** **Martinez, and** **Justice Chapa.** **All parties** **will be** **notified of** **the Court's** **decision in** **this appeal** **in accordance** **with TEX.** **R. APP.** **1'. 4S.** **Either parly** **may tile** **motion requesting** **the Courl** **to reconsider** **its determination** **that oral** **argument will** **not significantly** **aid the** **Court in** **determining the** **legal and** **factual issues** **presented in** **the appeal.** **Sec TEX.** **R. Ait.** **P. 39.S.** **Such motion** **should be** **filed within** **ten (10)** **days from the** **date of** **this order.** **It is** **so ORDERED** **on October** **25. 2013.** **Sandee Bryan** **Marion. Justice** **IN WITNESS** **WHEREOF. have** **hereunto set** **my hand** **and a/fixed** **the seal** **of the** **said court** **on this** **October 25,** **201 3.** 

# t*h
#### *In re*TRIGO, Federico Noel

(MR 21661)

Elmwood Park, IL

Order of the Court:

The motion by the Administrator of the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission to approve and confirm the report and recommendation of the Hearing Board is allowed, and respondent Federico Noel Trigo is suspended from the practice of law for two years and until further order of the Court.
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 37 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 1 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 37 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 2 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 37 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 3 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 37 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 4 of 5Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 37 Filed 01/28/2008 Page 5 of 5
# EUR-Lex - 52005AP0141 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52005AP0141

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement for scientific and technological co-operation between the European Community and the Federative Republic of Brazil (COM(2004)0625 - C6-0009/2005 - 2004/0216(CNS)) **

*
Official Journal 045 E , 23/02/2006 P. 0068 - 0069 *

P6_TA(2005)0141

EC-Brazil scientific and technological cooperation agreement *

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of the Agreement for scientific and technological co-operation between the European Community and the Federative Republic of Brazil (COM(2004)0625 — C6-0009/2005 — 2004/0216(CNS))

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2004)0625) [1],

- having regard to Articles 170(2) and 300(2), first subparagraph, first sentence of the EC Treaty,

- having regard to Article 300(3), first subparagraph, of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C6-0009/2005),

- having regard to Rules 51, 83(7) and 43 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (A6-0081/2005),

1. Approves conclusion of the agreement;

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

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
SCWC

- 15

- 00003 8 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI  I

STATE OF HAWAI  I , Respondent/Plaintiff

- Appellee,

vs.

STEPHEN L. PAULMIER , Petitioner /Defendant

- Appellant.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS ( CAAP

- 15

- 0000381 ; FC

- CR No

. 14

- 1

- 0101 )

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/Defendant

- Appellant Stephen L. Paulmier’s
application for writ of certiorari filed on October 1 5 , 2018 , is
hereby rejected

.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai  i, November 23 , 2018

.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
/s/ Michael D. Wilson Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-15-0000381 23-NOV-2018 11:18 AM
<PAGE>
                                                                      Exhibit 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                        Jurisdiction of          Immediate
Name                                    Incorporation            Parent
----                                    -------------            ------
<S>                                     <C>                      <C>
Benjamin Moore & Co., Limited           Canada                   Company

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

Technical Coatings Co.                  Pennsylvania             Company

Alachua Tung Oil Company                Florida                  Company

Benjamin Moore & Co (NZ) Limited        New Zealand              Company

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

White Knight Paints Pty Ltd.            Australia                Company

the indecor group                       New Jersey               Company

J. C. Licht Co.                         Illinois                 the indecor group

Janovic/Plaza Inc.                      New York                 the indecor group

Triangle Distributors Inc.              New Jersey               Company

</TABLE>






                                     44
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 21

                        SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              JURISDICTION
NAME                                                          OF ORGANIZATION
----                                                          ----------------
<S>                                                           <C>
Cablelink, Incorporated                                         Indiana

RNL, Inc.                                                       Indiana

Robinson Nugent-Dallas, Inc.                                    Texas

Robinson Nugent S.a.r.l.                                        France

Robinson Nugent GmbH                                            Germany

Robinson Nugent Ltd.                                            Great Britain

Nihon Robinson Nugent K.K.                                      Japan

Robinson Nugent dba Cablelink                                   Malaysia
  (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.

Robinson Nugent (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.                            Malaysia

Robinson Nugent S.A.                                            Switzerland

Robinson Nugent (Scotland) Limited                              Scotland

Robinson Nugent International, Inc.                             Virgin Islands

Robinson Nugent (Europe) B.V.                                   The Netherlands

Robinson Nugent (Belgium) B.V.B.A.                              Belgium

Robinson Nugent (Asia Pacific) Pte. Ltd.                        Singapore

Robinson Nugent Nordic, filial-till                             Sweden
Robinson Nugent (Europe) B.V.
The Netherlands

Robinson Nugent S. de R.L. de C.V.                              Mexico
</TABLE>
#### John Hunt, Plaintiff, v Werner Spitz Construction Company, Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant, et al., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff. Railing Supply Company, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: Defendant and third-party plaintiff Werner Spitz appeals from an order which granted the motion of third-party defendant Railing for dismissal of Werner Spitz’s third-party claims for contribution and/or common-law indemnification. In dismissing those claims, the court held that such claims are superseded by Railing’s express agreement to indemnify Werner Spitz.

The court erred in determining that the contractual indemnification claim supersedes the common-law claims. "Nothing in [a contractual indemnification] clause is inconsistent with [an indemnitee’s] right to common-law indemnity and there is no reason why the right to common-law indemnity and contractual indemnity should not coexist” *(Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co.,*136 AD2d 246, 248, *lv denied*73 NY2d 701). The existence of a contract of indemnity "does not preclude the existence also of a common-law right to indemnity” *(Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co., supra,*at 248, citing *O’Dowd v American Sur. Co.,*3 NY2d 347, *353; see also, Dairy lea Coop, v Rossal,*64 NY2d 1, 8-9). By a parity of reasoning, there is also no inconsistency between claims for contractual indemnification and common-law contribution.

We reject Railing’s contention that our affirmance of a prior declaratory judgment in favor of Railing’s insurer *(see, Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v Railing Supply Co.,*103 AD2d 1001, *Iv denied*64 NY2d 602) is stare decisis as to the issue raised on this appeal. The subsequent opinion of this court in *Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v Lumbermens Mut. Ins. Co. (supra)*states the law of this department. That intervening change in the law precludes the operation of the doctrine of stare decisis *(see,*Siegel, NY Prac § 449). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Rosenbloom, J. — dismiss cause of action.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Denman, Boomer, Green and Pine, JJ.
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*PAUL ALOI

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 17350.

The petition by the state of Connecticut for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 86 Conn. App. 363 (AC 24641), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“Did the Appellate Court properly construe and apply General Statutes § 53a-167a?”

*902
      *Christopher T. Godialis,*assistant state’s attorney, in support of the petition.

*Glenn T. Terk*and *P. Jo Anne Burgh,*in opposition.

Decided February 1, 2005
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 61 Filed 01/31/2008 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 61 Filed 01/31/2008 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 61 Filed 01/31/2008 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-05295-AKH Document 61 Filed 01/31/2008 Page 4 of 4