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

                                                                 Exhibit 10.13

Summary of Compensation Arrangement for Terrence T. Sullivan for Assuming the 
Presidency of American Paging, Inc. (API)

-- Salary will be $195,000 effective September 1, 1996.

-- Target bonus opportunity for the last four months of 1996 will be 15% of 
   new base salary of $195,000. Performance will be measured against 
   targets/performance measures for API as approved by LeRoy T. Carlson, Jr.

-- The target bonus percentage for 1997 will be 40%.

-- Entitled to use of company car and membership to luncheon club.

-- Mr. Sullivan will be awarded an additional 16,000 automatic stock options 
   for the remaining years of the current API Program starting in 1997 (for 
   a total of 20,000 stock option shares per year), and an additional 
   performance based stock option award of 16,000 stock option shares at 
   target performance for the remaining years of the current Stock Option 
   Program starting in 1997 (for a total of 20,000 stock option shares per 
   year at target performance).

   Mr. Sullivan will also receive an additional 6,000 automatic stock options 
   for functioning as API's CEO for the last four months of 1996, and an 
   additional performance based stock option award for 1996 which at target 
   performance would generate 6,000 stock option shares.

-- The automatic portion of the above awards will vest upon change-in-control 
   as defined in the TDS Long-Term Incentive Program. Also, the performance 
   based stock option awards for the year in which a change-in-control took 
   place will immediately vest at the target performance amount for the year.

-- Mr. Sullivan will be paid a severance allowance of one year and six months 
   of base salary if a change-in-control takes place, and Mr. Sullivan's 
   position was eliminated or "constructively" terminated. This term is 
   defined as being asked to accept and not agreeing to accept:

   -- A reduction in base salary.

   -- A reduction in target bonus opportunity.

   -- A material reduction in benefits package.

<PAGE>

   -- A material reduction in job responsibilities.

   -- An assignment which requires relocation.

-- Mr. Sullivan will have a 670 target stock option opportunity for Company 
   performance over the final four months of 1996. How many stock option 
   shares earned under this stock option opportunity will depend on how well 
   API performs in meeting the target/performance measures to be approved by 
   Ted Carlson.

-- This new Stock Option Program will have to be approved by API's two 
   outside directors who are members of API's Stock Option Committee.

-- Should change-in-control take place, payment of bonuses to eligible 
   participants of API annual bonus program(s) for that year will be made on 
   a pro rate basis based on API's performance for the portion of the year 
   prior to the date change-in-control took place.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Ernest Covington, Appellant.

[680 NYS2d 193]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey Atlas, J.), rendered April 19, 1995, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly submitted the charge of attempted burglary in the third degree as a lesser included offense of burglary in the third degree since there was a reasonable view of the evidence to support a finding that defendant caused the lock of the premises to be unlocked, and, in the process, caused the door to open one inch, but did not cross the threshold with any part of his body. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Wallach and Williams, JJ.
#### FIFTH DISTRICT FINANCE CO., Inc., v. BUSH. *

No. 16133.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Feb. 24, 1936.

Chas. J. Mundy, of New Orleans, for appellant.

Thos. J. Dobbins, of New Orleans, for appellee.

*

 Rehearing denied March 23, 1936.

JANVIER, Judge.

This is a suit on a promissory note. The defendant first filed exceptions, which were overruled, and then filed an answer in which he set up various technical defenses. The matter was set for trial on several occasions, and finally, having been called for trial, was submitted on the evidence of plaintiff and in the absence of defendant or counsel for defendant. Defendant filed motion for a new trial, and has appealed from the judgment refusing to grant a new trial.

The sole question presented is whether or not the judge a quo acted arbitrarily and clearly abused the discretion accorded him by the laws of this state when he refused to grant the new trial.

It appears from the record that the case was set for trial on several occasions and each time was continued, and that originally defendant was granted considerably more time than is usual for the purpose of preparing and filing his exceptions and then for the purpose of preparing and filing his answer.

*169Counsel for defendant-appellant contends that he was not present in the court below when this matter was called for trial because of the fact that he was required to be present in another court in another parish for the purpose of taking' up a case set for trial in the said other court. The trial judge, having been informed of these facts, nevertheless refused to grant a new trial..

We feel that he was actuated by the fact that plaintiff had been much delayed in having the matter tried below and that he felt that, under all the circumstances, - he was justified in refusing to grant a new trial. We find nothing in the record that would justify the belief that he abused the discretion which is vested in him by law.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, at the cost of appellant.

Affirmed.