alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.15(b)
CyrusOne


November 6, 2018


Venkatesh Durvasula 


Dear Tesh:


On behalf of CyrusOne, I am happy to extend an offer to you for the position of President, Europe reporting to our Chief Executive Officer, Gary Wojtaszek. This position is located at our London, England office. This offer is contingent upon approval by the Board of Directors and your agreement to complete your move to London by July 1, 2019. Your anticipated start date in this position is December 1, 2018 with your anticipated assignment ending on June 6, 2022.


Compensation for this salaried, exempt position will include:


		
	•
	Bi-weekly base salary of $21,153.84 (equivalent to $550,000 annually), to be paid in accordance with current company payroll policies.




		
	•
	Eligibility under current company policy to participate in the CyrusOne Bonus Program at a target opportunity level equal to 100% of your actual base pay earnings for the year. Any bonus earned is based on a combination of business results and your own results measured against performance objectives for you/your position. Any bonus payments made to you are at the sole discretion of management and require final approval from the CyrusOne Board of Directors.




		
	•
	Equity awards are set and approved by the company’s Compensation Committee every year. Your next annual equity award will be issued in the first quarter of 2019, with target annual equity of 300% of your base salary.




		
	•
	All other aspects of your Long Term International Assignment are detailed in the attached policy.




		
	•
	In the event of (i) a change in the CEO position at CyrusOne, (ii) a material adverse change of your duties and responsibilities, (iii) there is a Change in Control (as defined in your existing employment agreement upon your agreement, the Company will pay for your relocation back to the U.S. within 30 days of any of those events.




The terms of this letter will supersede any previous terms or offers of employment which may have been made whether verbal or written regarding this role.


We are excited to extend this opportunity to you and look forward to your acceptance of your new position. If our offer is accepted and signed, the effective date of your role will be December 1, 2018. If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Again, congratulations!


Sincerely,


/s/ Kellie Teal-Guess
Kellie Teal-Guess
EVP, Chief People Officer ACCEPTED BY:
/s/ Tesh Durvasula
**Exhibit 22**

** **

**Consent of BBA Inc.**

 

We consent to the inclusion in this annualreport on Form 40-F of New Gold Inc., which is being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, of referencesto our name in connection with, and to the use of information derived from, the technical report entitled "NI 43-101 TechnicalReport Feasibility Study of the Rainy River Project, Ontario, Canada”, dated February 14, 2014, included in the Annual InformationForm of New Gold Inc. for the financial year ended December 31, 2014 and we consent to the incorporation by reference of such informationin the registration statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-160500) of New Gold Inc.

 

Dated this 27th day of March, 2015

 

**BBA Inc.**

 

*/s/André Allaire *

By: 	André Allaire

Title	President
Leon BRIGHT, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0609

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Willy Michael GOLDMAN and Shirley Goldman, Appellants, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1098

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[April 18, 2018]

Daniel L. Monfiston of The Monfiston Firm, P.A., Miami, for appellants.

Paige B. Segrera, Michael Simon and Jennifer V. Ortega of Simon, Reed & Salazar, P.A., Miami, for appellee.

Kuntz, J.

This is an appeal of the circuit court's final summary judgment in favor of the insurer. After a plumbing line leak damaged their house, the homeowners notified their insurer, which investigated the claim and issued payment. Without informing their insurer that they disputed the amount of payment, the homeowners filed a lawsuit for breach of the insurance policy. The insurer immediately moved to compel appraisal; an appraisal took place; and the insurer timely paid the appraisal award. Because the appraisal process established the amount of damages, and the insurer paid that amount, the court granted summary judgment in the insurer's favor.

The homeowners appeal and spend nearly eight pages of their brief discussing *Johnson v. Omega Insurance Co.* , 200 So.3d 1207 (Fla. 2016). But *Johnson* is not applicable. In *Johnson* , the insurer denied the homeowner's claim in its entirety, leaving the homeowner with few options other than a lawsuit. *Id.* at 1210. Here, the insurer valued the loss and paid the claim based on that valuation. The homeowners did not object. Until the filing of the complaint, the insurer was unaware of a disagreement with the damage valuation. Once informed, the insurer demanded appraisal and paid the appraisal.

There was never a breakdown in the claims adjusting or communications process, nor was there a refusal to pay the claim. "It is only when the claims adjusting process breaks down and the parties are no longer working to resolve the claim within the contract, but are actually taking steps that breach the contract, that the insured may be entitled to an award of fees under section 627.428, Florida Statutes." *Hill v. State Farm Fla. Ins. Co.* , 35 So.3d 956, 960 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (citing *312*Lewis v. Universal Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.* , 13 So.3d 1079, 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) ).

The homeowners seek to distinguish *Hill* , arguing it is the incorrect denial of benefits and not some sinister concept of wrongfulness that triggers fees. They are correct that it is the incorrect denial of benefits that triggers an award of attorney's fees under section 627.428 ; yet, they are wrong to distinguish *Hill* on that basis. In *Hill* , and here, the insured never gave the insurer the opportunity to incorrectly deny the benefits before filing a lawsuit. The *Hill* court questioned "whether this lawsuit was filed to force [the insurer] to conduct an appraisal or whether it was merely a preemptive lawsuit intended to obtain attorneys' fees for the usual efforts in negotiating an insurance claim." 35 So.3d at 960. Here, the circuit court found that was the exact reason the lawsuit was filed. Thus, the court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the insurer.

*Affirmed.*

Gross and Taylor, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.2

                             ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT

                                       OF

                          CAPITAL ACQUISITION COMPANY

                     PURSUANT TO SECTION 607.1006 OF THE
              FLORIDA BUSINESS CORPORATION ACT, THE UNDERSIGNED
               CORPORATION ADOPTS THESE ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT

         FIRST:  The name of the Corporation is CAPITAL ACQUISITION COMPANY.

         SECOND: The Articles of Incorporation of this Corporation are amended
by changing the Article number I so that, as amended, said Article shall read
as follows:

                                ARTICLE I - NAME

         The name of this Corporation is MSU Corporation.

         THIRD:  The Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation of the
Corporation set forth above was adopted on the 7th day of November, 1994.

         FOURTH: The Amendment was approved by the Shareholders.  The number of
votes cast for the Amendment by the Shareholders was sufficient for approval.

Signed this 14th day of November, 1994.


                                        CAPITAL ACQUISITION COMPANY

                                        By: Paul Abrams, Vice President        
                                            -----------------------------------
orccii-ex105_115.htm



Exhibit 10.5

 

Owl Rock Capital Advisors LLC

245 Park Avenue, 41st Floor

New York, NY 10167

 

June 8, 2018

 

Craig W. Packer

Owl Rock Capital Corporation II

245 Park Avenue, 41st Floor

New York, NY 10167

 


			
	
 
	
Re:
	
Partial Waiver of Advisory Fee 




 

Dear Mr. Packer,

 

Reference is hereby made to the Investment Advisory Agreement (the “Investment Advisory Agreement”), dated February 6, 2017, by and between Owl Rock Capital Corporation II (the “Company”) and Owl Rock Capital Advisors LLC (the “Adviser”). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Investment Advisory Agreement.

 

Beginning April 1, 2018 (the “Effective Date”), we hereby agree at all times prior to the date of the closing of a liquidity event (as such term is defined in the Registration Statement) (a “Liquidity Event”), to waive (A) any portion of the Management Fee that is in excess of 1.50% of the Company’s gross assets, excluding cash and cash-equivalents but including assets purchased with borrowed amounts at the end of the two most recently completed calendar quarters, calculated in accordance with the Investment Advisory Agreement, (B) any portion of the Incentive Fee on Income that is in excess of 17.5% of the Company’s Pre-Incentive Fee Net Investment Income which shall be calculated in accordance with the Investment Advisory Agreement but based on a Quarterly Preferred Return of 1.50% per quarter and an Upper Level Breakpoint of 1.818%, and (C) any portion of the Incentive Fee on Capital Gains that is in excess of 17.5% of the Company’s realized capital gains, if any, on a cumulative basis from inception through the end of such calendar year, net of all realized capital losses and unrealized capital depreciation on a cumulative basis, minus the aggregate amount of any previously paid Incentive Fee on Capital Gains as calculated in accordance with U.S. GAAP.  

 

Any portion of the Management Fee, Incentive Fee on Income and Incentive Fee on Capital Gains waived shall not be subject to recoupment.  

 For the avoidance of doubt, the purpose of the waivers described herein is to reduce aggregate fees payable to the Adviser by the Company, from and after the Effective Date and until the closing of a Liquidity Event. 


			
	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
Sincerely yours,

	
 
	
 

	
 
	
Owl Rock Capital Advisors LLC

	
 
	
 

	
 
	
By:
	
          

	
 
	
 
	
Name: Alan Kirshenbaum

	
 
	
 
	
Title: Chief Operating Officer




 

 

1
David Christopher KING, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2976

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 18, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Willie Ray MOORE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-1856

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 22, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### In the Matter of Harold M. Fishman (Admitted as Harold Michael Fishman), a Disbarred Attorney.

[771 NYS2d 638]

Application for reinstatement as an attorney and counselor-at-law in the State of New York denied. No opinion. Concur— Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Rosenberger, Friedman and Gonzalez, JJ.
John E. WATKINS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0210

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 09, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Christopher Joseph Wayne BEASLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D16-5223

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 1, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
EX PARTE CONTINENTAL MOTORS, INC.

1151260

Supreme Court of Alabama.

February 17, 2017

Mand. pet. denied.
Deborah A. ZOMERMAAND, Petitioner, v. CITY OF TAMPA, and State Street Homes III, LLC, Respondents.

Case No. 2D17-4444

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 28, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
```

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18  U.S.C.ss.1350),
the undersigned,  John D. White, Chief Financial Officer of Lone Star Steakhouse
& Saloon, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"),  does hereby certify, to
his knowledge, that:

The  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the period  ended  March 22, 2005 of the
Company (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.

                                                   /s/ John D. White
                                                   ---------------------
                                                   John D. White
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
                                                   May 2, 2005
```
Emmanuel ZIZI, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. JPMC SPECIALTY MORTGAGE, LLC, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D 17-1143

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

OCTOBER 05, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
No. 28,737.

#### The State of Kansas, *Appellee,*v. Ed Turner, *Appellant.*

(278 Pac. 58.)

Opinion filed June 8, 1929.

*Thurman Hill,*of Independence, for the appellant.

*Warren B. Grant,*county attorney, *Richard L. Becker,*assistant county attorney, and *C. W. Mitchell,*of Cherryvale, for the appellee.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

Hopkins, J.:

The defendant was convicted of violating the prohibitory liquor law and appeals.

The facts were substantially these: Some federal prohibition officers, with a deputy sheriff, visited defendant’s farmhouse about eight miles from Independence, fortified with a search warrant. They found defendant’s wife in the kitchen and defendant in the next room. In one corner of the kitchen they found two gallon jugs containing intoxicating liquor. The wife began to cry; said she had begged them not to bring liquor into the house. The defendant, who was within hearing distance, claimed someone else must have left the liquor near his mail box; that he innocently brought it to his house. The jury saw and heard the witnesses and resolved the question of fact against the defendant. There was ample evidence *377to sustain the verdict, and no reason is apparent why the jury’s decision is not conclusive.

A contention that the court erred in the instructions to the jury is without substantial merit and cannot be sustained.

A contention that the court erred in admitting testimony of a former occasion when liquor was found in defendant’s possession must fail on authority of *State v. Dunkerton*(ante, p. 374, 277 Pac. 1019) and authorities cited.

We find no error in the record and are constrained to say that the appeal is without substantial merit.

The judgment is affirmed.
Johnathan K. DAVIS a/k/a Jonathan K. Davis, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-444

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 17, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
Catalyst Preparation Batch Process

Key:

CP Closed Process

BP Batch Process

AT Automatic Transfer

RP Product Release Point

Component 1

Component 2

Component 3

Component 4

Stage 1

Reactor

BP

CP

Stage 1

Catalyst Product

AT

RP

To Catalyst Preparation Batch Process
George Alexander HILL, Sr., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0156

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. 1350

(SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Valassis Communications, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify, to the best of his knowledge and belief that:

(1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



|                      |  |  |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Dated: August 7, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Robert L. Recchia  
|                      |  |  |  | Robert L. Recchia      
|                      |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6083 

To amend the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 to extend waiver of duplicate 

benefits limitation for certain payments to individuals in the event of 

a major disaster, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 26, 2023 

Mr. GRAVES of Louisiana (for himself and Mr. CARTER of Louisiana) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 to extend 

waiver of duplicate benefits limitation for certain payments to individuals in the event of a major disaster, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Duplications of Bene5 fits Victims Relief Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. WAIVER OF DUPLICATE BENEFITS. 

7 Section 1210(a) of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 

8 2018 (Public Law 115–254) is amended— 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6083 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (3) by striking ‘‘between Jan2 uary 1, 2016, and December 31, 2021’’ and insert3 ing ‘‘during the period beginning on January 1, 

4 2016, and ending on the date on which the provision 

5 contained in such amendment is struck pursuant to 

6 paragraph (4)’’; 

7 (2) in paragraph (4) by striking ‘‘5’’ and insert8 ing ‘‘10’’; 

9 (3) by redesignating paragraph (5) as para10 graph (6); and 

11 (4) by inserting after paragraph (4) the fol12 lowing: 

13 ‘‘(5) PROHIBITION ON INCOME THRESHOLD.— 

14 In carrying out the amendment made by paragraph 

15 (1), no income threshold may be applied to limit the 

16 eligibility of a recipient from qualifying for a waiver 

17 under the amendment made by such paragraph.’’. 

Æ 


ssavage on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
# In the United States Court of Federal Claims

No. 17

- 502C

(Fi led : November 1 , 2017 )

************************************

*

THE FRONT LINE APPAREL *

GROUP, INC., d/b/a FRONT LINE *

APPAREL

, *

*

Plaintiff, *

*

v. *

*

THE UNITED STATES, *

*

Defendant, *

*

and *

*

DAK RESOURCES, INC., *

*

Defendant

- Intervenor. *

*************************************

ORDER

Pursuant to the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed by Plaintiff, the Court hereby

DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE the above captioned case. Each party shall bear its

own costs in this protest. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/ Edward J. Damich

EDWARD J. DAMICH

Senior Judge
```

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

  Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.ss. 1350)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (18  U.S.C.ss.1350),
the  undersigned,  Randall  H.  Pierce,  Chief  Financial  Officer  of Lone Star
Steakhouse & Saloon, Inc., a Delaware  corporation (the "Company"),  does hereby
certify, to his knowledge, that:

The  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the period  ended  June 17,  2003 of the
Company (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.

                                             /s/Randall H. Pierce
                                             --------------------
                                             Randall H. Pierce
                                             Chief Financial Officer
                                             August 1, 2003
```
Ann CIPRIANI-MAGES and Anthony G. Mages, Appellants, v. THIRD FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF CLEVELAND, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2713

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 3, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

*Affirmed.*
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 19

- 990

_____________________________
T IMOTHY S NEED , Appellant,

v.

F LORIDA D EPARTMENT O F C ORRECTIONS , et al.
, Appellee s

.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Charles W. Dodson , Judge

. September 30, 2020

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
L EWIS , B.L. T HOMAS , and N ORDBY , JJ., concur

.

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

.

_____________________________2 Timothy Sneed, pro se
, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Kristen Jennifer Lonergan, Assistant Attorney General, and Lance E. Neff , Department of Corrections
, Tallahassee, for Appellee s

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,000
<PP&E>                                          11,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,073,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          444,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,670,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,073,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (443,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (443,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (112,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                               (331,000)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (331,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.11)
        

</TABLE>
IN the INTEREST OF R.J., a child.

T.B., Appellant, v. Department of Children and Families and Guardian ad Litem Program, Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-3660

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed January 24, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.