alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[979 NE2d 802, 955 NYS2d 543]

#### Ricky D. West et al., Respondents, v Mark Hogan et al., Appellants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Appellants. David Vande-Water, Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

Decided October 25, 2012

*1074APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Colucci & Gallaher, P.C.,*Buffalo *(Paul G. Joyce*of counsel), for appellants.

*Conboy, McKay, Bachman & Kendall, LLP,*Watertown *(Peter L. Walton*of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, with costs. The courts below did not err as a matter of law in awarding punitive damages *(see Ross v Louise Wise Servs., Inc.,*8 NY3d 478, 489 [2007]).

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones.
EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS





The Board of Directors
FirstFed Financial Corp.





We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
333-33463;033-63207) on Form S-8 of FirstFed Financial Corp. of our report
dated January 25, 2002, relating to the consolidated statements of financial
condition of FirstFed Financial Corp. and subsidiary as of December 31, 2001
and 2000, and the related consolidated statements of operations and
comprehensive earnings, stockholders' equity and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2001, which report appears
in the December 31, 2001 annual report on Form 10-K of FirstFed Financial
Corp.




                                         KPMG LLP


Los Angeles, California
March 19, 2002
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-60,612] 

                    In accordance with Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2273), and Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974 (26 U.S.C. 2813), as amended, the Department of Labor issued a Certification Regarding Eligibility to Apply for Worker Adjustment Assistance and Alternative Trade Adjustment Assistance on January 26, 2007, applicable to workers of Riley Creek Lumber Company, Moyie Springs Mill, including on-site leased workers from Industrial Personnel, Moyie Springs, Idaho. The notice was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on February 14, 2007 (72 FR 7087).                 

At the request of the State agency, the Department reviewed the certification for workers of the subject firm. The workers are engaged in the production of stud lumber. 

The company reports that after an October 2008 merger, Riley Creek Lumber Company, Moyie Springs Mill is currently known as Idaho Forest Group. 

Accordingly, the certification is being amended to include workers of the subject firm whose UI wages are reported under the successor firm, Idaho Forest Group, LLC, Moyie Springs, Idaho. 

*The amended notice applicable to TA-W-60,612 is hereby issued as follows:*

All workers of Riley Creek Lumber, Moyie Springs Mill, currently known as Idaho Forest Group, LLC, including on-site leased workers from Industrial Personnel, Moyie Springs, Idaho, who became totally or partially separated from employment on or after December 13, 2005, through January 26, 2009, are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 1974, and are also eligible to apply for alternative trade adjustment assistance under Section 246 of the Trade Act of 1974.

Signed at Washington, DC this 12th day of January 2009. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-1485 Filed 1-23-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 

 

			
		 	Michael Baker Corporation
		
		 	Airside Business Park
		 	100 Airside Drive
		 	Moon Township, PA 15108
		
		 	(412) 269-6300

 CONFIDENTIAL 
 July 15, 2013 
  

	 	Re:	Retention Award Notice 

 Dear
                    : 
 I
am pleased to inform you that in recognition of the key position you hold with the Company, you have been granted a $            Retention Award under Michael Baker Corporation’s Key
Employee Retention Plan (the “Plan”). In general, subject to the terms of the Plan, Michael Baker will pay you the Retention Award if you continue as a full-time employee of the Company through March 1, 2014. 

A copy of the Plan is attached to this letter. Please review the Plan as it sets forth the specific terms of the Award, including
conditions applicable to your actual receipt of the Award. 
 The fact that you received a Retention Award and all of the
details relating to it are strictly confidential and it is important that you keep these matters strictly confidential. Your failure to maintain the strict confidentiality of such matters will relieve the Company of the obligation to pay you the
Retention Award or any portion of it. 
 Please contact Jim McKnight in The Office of the Chief Executive, if you have any
questions regarding the Plan or your Award. 
  

	
	 Sincerely,

	
	 H. James McKnight

	 Executive VP & CLO



 Attachment
Exhibit 99.2
------------




                       CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                        18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                        AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
             SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Landauer, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
James M. O'Connell, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section  1350, as adopted pursuant to Section  906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of
           section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
           of 1934; and

     (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents,
           in all material respects, the financial condition and
           result of operations of the Company.




                                  /s/ James M. O'Connell
                                  --------------------------
                                  James M. O'Connell
                                  Chief Financial Officer


February 12, 2003
**Exhibit
      (10)-ii**





**Summary
      of Terms For Company Contribution For Certain Participants in the 401(k) Excess
      Program**








On
      February 27, 2006, the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of
      Directors (the “Compensation Committee”) approved a one-time arrangement to make
      limited contributions for the benefit of employees, including named executive
      officers of the Company, participating in the 401(k) Excess Program (“Excess
      Program”) under the Company’s non-qualified Executive Deferred Compensation
      Plan.  The contributions were made as a technical correction in the
      administration of the Excess Program.  As a standard feature of the Excess
      Program, the Company made a matching contribution based on a percentage of
      the
      employee’s salary and level of contribution into that program.




However,
      the Company determined that because changes in IRS regulations under Internal
      Revenue Code Section 409A did not allow previously elected deferrals of certain
      performance-based bonuses, affected employees would not be entitled to receive
      the expected benefits of the Company matching contribution on those
      deferrals.  In order to preserve the intended matching contribution, the
      Compensation Committee authorized affected employees to receive Company
      contributions into their Excess Program deferral accounts in the amounts they
      would have received if the Company had been able to permit deferral of
      performance-based bonus compensation into the Excess Program under their
      elections.
#### Deutsche Bank Nation Trust Company, Respondent, v Francisco Feliciano et al., Defendants, and Sheila Ellerbe, Appellant.

Submitted May 28, 2013;

decided June 27, 2013

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
IN THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 24-0346

IN THE MATTER OF:

B.B.,

A Youth In Need Of Care.

ORDER 

Upon consideration of Mother and’s Motion For Extension Of Time (First), 

and with good cause shown, Mother and Appellant M.A.F. is hereby granted an 

extension of time until August 23, 2024 in which to prepare, file and serve Mother 

and Appellant’s opening brief.

No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 23 2024

07/23/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0346
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie Lee RANDEL, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-20226

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 21, 2006.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Willie Lee Randel, Jr., Beaumont, TX, pro se.

Before STEWART, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Willie Lee Randel, Jr., in his appeal of the order revoking his term of supervised release has filed a motion and a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Randel has not filed a response to his counsel’s motion.

This court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction on its own motion if necessary. *Mosley v. Cozby,*813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir.1987). Article III, § 2 of the Constitution limits federal court jurisdiction to actual cases and controversies. *See Spencer v. Kemna,*523 U.S. 1, 7,118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998). The case-or-controversy requirement demands that “some concrete and continuing injury other than the now-ended incarceration or parole — some ‘collateral consequence’ of the conviction— must exist if the suit is to be maintained.” *Id.*

Randel has served the sentence that was imposed upon the revocation of his supervised release. The order revoking Randel’s term of supervised release imposed no further term of supervised release. Accordingly, there is no case or controversy for this court to address, and the appeal is *470dismissed as moot. Counsel’s motion to withdraw is denied as unnecessary.

MOTION DENIED AS UNNECESSARY; APPEAL DISMISSED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
#### Maria Harakidas et al., Respondents, v City of New York et al., Defendants, and Brazal South Holdings, LLC, Appellant.

Submitted December 10, 2012;

decided January 10, 2013

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
Missouri Court of Appeals

Southern District 

JULY 15, 2015 

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 30.25(b). 

1. SD33345 STATE OF MISSOURI, Plaintiff-Respondent 

 vs. 

 WINDY D. FRIEND, Defendant-Appellant
#### DULIN v. WEST.

No. 4181.

District Court, W. D. Missouri, *W.*D.

Oct. 22, 1946.

W. F. Woodruff and E. Robert Seaver, both of Kansas City, for plaintiff.

J. K. Owens, of Kansas City, for defendant.

REEVES, District Judge.

The plaintiff has submitted 19 interrogatories in writing, as provided in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 33, 28 U.S. C.A. following section 723c. The motion to strike is directed at interrogatory numbered 4, interrogatories numbered 7 and 8, and interrogatories numbered 15, 16, 17 and 18. These will be considered.

1. Interrogatory numbered 4 seeks information as to the amount the defendant paid for the automobile sold to him, as he avers, above the ceiling price. The regulations of the Director of the Office of Price Administration permit a dealer to negotiate with the seller of an automobile and to consummate a purchase upon the best terms obtainable. The regulation only forbids the dealer from *selling*above the ceiling price. It would be of no service or aid to the plaintiff, therefore, to know what the dealer paid for the auto-’ bile which it is claimed was subsequently sold to him.

2. Interrogatories 7 and 8 seek to develop whether the defendant acted alone or in association with some one else when the sale was made. The plaintiff is entitled to this information, otherwise the testimony might develop at the trial that other parties would have to be brought in. There is nothing privileged about such information and therefore it should be given to thé plaintiff.

3. Interrogatories 13 to 18 inclusive seek information as to any discipline or criticism that might have been heretofore inflicted upon the defendant by the Office of Price Administration for selling over the ceiling price in other cases. It is proper for the plaintiff to know this, and such evidence may be used on proof of willfulness and its bearing on the question of increased damages for violating the ceiling price.

The defendant’s motion to strike interrogatories should be overruled, and it will be so ordered.
Exhibit 32(l)

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





|(1) | The Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and    
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods presented in the Report.







|/s/ Jay A. LewisJay A. Lewis
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
Entergy New Orleans, Inc.
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:	February 28, 2008
EXHIBIT 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection  with  the  Quarterly  Report  of  ONLINE  ORIGINALS,  INC.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period ended May 31, 2007,  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Gaye
Adams,  Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
that:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all  material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date:    July 16, 2007


By:      /s/ Gaye Adams
         ---------------------------
         Gaye Adams
         Chief Executive Officer, principal executive officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains financial information extracted from the Corporation's
audited financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 1995,
and the accompanying footnotes and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000012355
<NAME> THE BLACK & DECKER CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         131,600
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  694,400
<ALLOWANCES>                                    43,100
<INVENTORY>                                    855,700
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,106,600
<PP&E>                                       1,772,200
<DEPRECIATION>                                 905,400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,545,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,786,900
<BONDS>                                      1,704,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    150,000
<COMMON>                                        43,200
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,230,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,545,300
<SALES>                                      4,766,100
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,766,100
<CGS>                                        3,016,700
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,340,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             193,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                225,500
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            216,500
<DISCONTINUED>                                  38,400
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (30,900)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   224,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.37
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 10 (l)**

**THE BLACK & DECKEREXECUTIVE ANNUAL INCENTIVE PLAN**

1.     Purpose 

        Thepurpose of The Black & Decker Corporation Executive Annual Incentive Plan is to make apart of the annual compensation of the Corporation’s officers dependent on theCorporation’s performance and to provide rewards for performance as a competitiveincentive to their efforts on the Corporation’s behalf, and thus to enhance andreinforce the Corporation’s ability to achieve its business goals. It is theintention of the Board of Directors of the Corporation in adopting the Plan that amountspaid to Participants under the Plan be “qualified performance-basedcompensation” within the meaning of Section 162(m) of the Code and the Section 162(m)Regulations. 

2.     Definitions 

        Wheneverused for purposes of the Plan, the following terms have the meanings defined below, andwhen the defined meaning is intended, the term is capitalized: 

        (a)                 “Award” means a grant to a Participant of incentive compensation under          the Plan. 

        (b)                 “CEO” means the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation. 

        (c)                 “Code” means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended from time          to time. 

        (d)                 “Committee” means the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors          of the Corporation. All members of the Committee shall be members of the Board          of Directors of the Corporation who are not eligible to participate in the Plan          and who are (i) disinterested persons as defined in Rule 16b-3 adopted pursuant          to the Exchange Act, (ii) outside directors as defined in the Section 162(m)          Regulations, and (iii) independent directors as defined in the New York Stock          Exchange’s corporate governance rules and the Corporation’s Corporate          Governance Policies and Procedures Statement. 

        (e)                 “Corporation” means The Black & Decker Corporation. 

        (f)                 “Maximum Participant Award” means, with respect to a particular          Participant, the maximum Award payable to such Participant as determined in          accordance with Section 6(c) of the Plan. 

        (g)                 “Participant” means an employee who is an officer of the Corporation          who has been designated to participate in the Plan. 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-7733

CLYDE FRANK YOUNG,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

LONNIE SAUNDERS, Warden; L. R. DAY, Assistant

Warden; S. HOLLAR, Warden,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-00-791-7)

Submitted: April 12, 2001 Decided: April 17, 2001

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clyde Frank Young, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Clyde Frank Young appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed

the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. See Young v. Saunders, No. CA-00-791-7 (W.D. Va. Nov. 22,

2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED