alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 4.2   AMENDMENT TO THE REGISTRATION RIGHTS AGREEMENT  ThisAMENDMENT TOTHEREGISTRATION RIGHTS AGREEMENT(this Amendment) is made and entered into as of October 1, 2007, by and among RARE Hospitality International, Inc., a Georgia corporation (the Company), and the several initial purchasers (the Initial Purchasers) named inSchedule Ato the Purchase Agreement (as defined below), for whom Wachovia Capital Markets, LLC is acting as representative (the Representative).  RECITALS:  WHEREAS,the Company and the Initial Purchasers had previously entered into the Registration Rights Agreement, dated November 22, 2006 (the Agreement), in connection with the sale to the Initial Purchasers by the Company of its 2.50% Convertible Senior Notes due 2026 (the Notes) pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, dated as of November 16, 2006 (the Purchase Agreement), by and between the Company and the Initial Purchasers (capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning as set forth in the Agreement); and  WHEREAS, pursuant to the Companys solicitation of consents to amend the Registration Rights Agreement and the Indenture (as amended and restated on September 18, 2007, the Consent Solicitation), the Company has requested, among other things, that the Holders of a majority in principal amount of the outstanding Registrable Securities consent to the Companys amendment of the Registration Rights Agreement to allow the Company to terminate the Registration Rights Agreement for any reason; and  WHEREAS, such consents have been obtained by the Company, and  WHEREAS,the Company and the Initial Purchasers wish to amend the Agreement to permit the Company to terminate the Agreement for any reason.  NOW, THEREFORE,in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto, intending legally to be bound, agree to amend the Agreement by adding a Section 7(l) to the Agreement as follows:  Section 7(l).Termination. Notwithstanding any other provision herein to the contrary, the Company may terminate this Agreement at any time for any reason upon notice to the Holders. Upon such notice, this Agreement shall be terminated and shall have no further force or effect.  [Signatures appear on next page]    Signature Pages to the Amendment to the Registration Rights Agreement  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have entered into this Amendment as of the date first written above.  RARE HOSPITALITY INTERNATIONAL, INC.
   By:
        /s/ W. Douglas Benn
 Name:
        W. Douglas Benn
 Title:
        Chief Financial Officer
   WACHOVIA CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC
 RBC CAPITAL MARKETS CORPORATION
   By:
        WACHOVIA CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC
   By:
        /s/ Lear Beyer
 Name:
        Lear Beyer
 Title:
        Managing Director
Exhibit






Exhibit 10.24


AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO THE HYSTER-YALE GROUP, INC.
EXCESS RETIREMENT PLAN
(Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2016)


Hyster-Yale Group, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby adopts this Amendment No. 1 to the Hyster-Yale Group, Inc. Excess Retirement Plan (Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2016) (the “Plan”), to be effective as of January 1, 2018.  Words used herein with initial capital letters which are defined in the Plan are used herein as so defined.


Section 1


Section 2.6 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:


“Section 2.6.    Employer shall mean the Company, Nuvera Fuel Cells, LLC and Bolzoni Auramo, Inc.”


Section 2


Section 2.8 of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:


“Section 2.8    Fixed Income Fund shall mean the Vanguard Retirement Savings Trust III investment fund under the Profit Sharing Plan or any equivalent fixed income fund thereunder which is designated by the Company’s Retirement Funds Investment Committee as the successor thereto.” 


Section 3


Section 3.2(c)(i) of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:


“(i)    The Basic Excess 401(k) Benefits shall be determined by multiplying each Excess 401(k) Benefit by a fraction, the numerator of which is the lesser of the percentage of Compensation elected to be deferred in the deferral election form for such Plan Year or 6% and the denominator of which is the percentage of Compensation elected to be deferred; and”
Section 4


Section 3.2(c)(ii) of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:


“(ii)    The Additional Excess 401(k) Benefits (if any) shall be determined by multiplying each Excess 401(k) Benefit by a fraction, the numerator of which is the excess (if any) of (1) the percentage of Compensation elected to be deferred in the deferral election form for such Plan Year over (2) 6%, and the denominator of which is the percentage of Compensation elected to be deferred.”




EXECUTED this 11th day of December, 2017.


                    
HYSTER-YALE GROUP, INC.


By:    /s/ Suzanne S. Taylor
Suzanne S. Taylor
Title:    Senior Vice President, 
General Counsel and Secretary
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

ROBERT SMITH,

Appellant

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL, JOSH SHAPIRO,

HEAD OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, JOHN WETZEL, AND

SUPERINTENDENT OF SCI

- BENNER, ROBERT MARSH,

Appellees :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 61 MAP 2018

Appeal from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court at No. 420 MD 2018 dated September 27, 2018

O RDER

PER CURIAM DECIDED: June 18, 2019

AND NOW, this 18th day of June , 2019

, the Order of the Commonwealth Court is

REVERSED

. Bundy v. Wetzel , 184 A.3d 551 (Pa. 2018) (holding that, to satisfy an

inmate’s right to due process, before the Department of Corrections (“DOC”) can begin

deducting funds from an inmate’s prison account for purposes of Act 84, it must inform

the inmate of: (1) his financial liability; (2) the DOC’s policy for deducting funds from

prisoner accounts, and (3) his right to object to the application of the DOC’s policy to his

a ccount); Petition to Stop 20% Deduction for Court Costs, Fines and Restitution from Gifts

from Family and Friends, and the Return of Money Pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8127,

6/6/2018, at ¶2 (averring that, upon Appellant’s confinement, the DOC began deductin g

funds from Appellant’s prison account “without notification”)

. T he matter is REMANDED

for further proceedings.
---

# Exhibit 99.2Statement of Chief Financial Officer of RARE Hospitality International, Inc.
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 RARE Hospitality International, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, W. Douglas Benn, 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

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

/s/ W. Douglas Benn
-------------------
W. Douglas Benn
Chief Financial Officer
May 9, 2003
#### Jay R. Myrow et al., Appellants, v City of Poughkeepsie et al., Respondents.

[769 NYS2d 604]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), dated November 19, 2002, which granted the motion of the defendants City of Poughkeepsie and Poughkeepsie Urban Renewal Agency, and the separate motion of the defendants Allright Corporation and Allright New York Parking, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The plaintiff Jay R. Myrow was injured when he slipped and fell on some ice in a municipal parking lot. There was no snow on the ground on the morning of the accident, but snow and possibly freezing rain had fallen throughout the afternoon until “early evening.” The accident occurred at around 8:45 p.m. in a portion of the parking lot that had been plowed earlier that day by the defendant City of Poughkeepsie.

It is well settled that the defendants cannot be held liable in negligence for a naturally-occurring icy condition in the parking lot “unless a reasonable amount of time [had] elapsed, subsequent to the cessation of the storm, for taking protective measures” *(Chapman v City of New York,*268 AD2d 498 [2000]; *see also Dowden v Long Is. R.R.,*305 AD2d 631 [2003]). Under the circumstances of this case, there was insufficient time, as a matter of law, to impose liability on any of the defendants for failing to clear the parking lot of naturally-occurring snow and ice *(see Wines v City of New York,*283 AD2d 639 [2001]; *Whitt v St. John’s Episcopal Hosp.,*258 AD2d 648 [1999]; *Drevis v City of New York,*257 AD2d 595 [1999]; *Fuks v New York City Tr. Auth.,*243 AD2d 678 [1997]; *Wall v Village of Mineola,*237 AD2d 511 [1997]).

*481The plaintiffs’ farther contention that the City of Poughkeepsie, by undertaking- to remove the snow in the parking lot, either negligently created the hazardous condition or exacerbated the naturally hazardous condition created by the storm, is not supported by any evidence other than their own speculation, which was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Joseph v Danice Stores of Nostrand Ave.,*290 AD2d 536 [2002]; *Grau v Taxter Park Assoc.,*283 AD2d 551 [2001]; *Gibbs v Rochdale Vil.,*282 AD2d 706 [2001]).

In light of the foregoing, we need not reach the parties’ remaining contentions. Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Schmidt and Rivera, JJ., concur.
Re: Offer of Employment
         www.navisite.com




---



##### 



Stock Options Plan:
  Benefits:
     
    
    Signing NaviSites Non-Competition Agreement, Employee Inventions and Proprietary
Rights Assignment Agreement, Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, and Anti-Harassment
Policy Acknowledgement.
    
    Submitting satisfactory proof of your identity and legal authorization to work in the
United States (as required by the Immigration and Control Act of 1986). The enclosed
sheets specify the types of documents that may be submitted as proof. You must exhibit
originals of these document(s) within the first three (3) business days of your start date
with NaviSite. Non-compliance with the I-9 requirements may include disciplinary action up
to and including termination of employment.
 www.navisite.com




---



##### 



Sincerely,/s/ Elaine OuelletteElaine OuelletteVice President, Human Resources /s/ Rathin Sinha
    
    5-8-2007
    
    on or before 6-1-2007Rathin Sinha
    
    Date
    
    Start Date:(Rathindra N. Sinha)
 www.navisite.com




---



##### 



1.
    
    New Hire Check List2.
    
    Offer letter signed by you3.
    
    Non  Competition Agreement4.
    
    Employee Invention & Proprietary Rights5.
    
    Code of Business Conduct & Ethics6.
    
    Anti Harassment Policy Acknowledgement7.
    
    I-9 form (Must be completed with authorized NaviSite employee/HRBP within first three (3)
days of employment)8.
    
    W-4 form9.
    
    State withholdings (if Applicable)10.
    
    Employment Application11.
    
    Kroll Background Check Authorization12.
    
    Equal Employment Opportunity Form13.
    
    Direct Deposit (Must be completed even if employee does not elect direct deposit, (check
NO)).14.
    
    Emergency Contact Information15.
    
    Handbook Receipt & Acknowledgement16.
    
    Payroll Deduction Form17.
    
    Blue Cross / Blue Shield  HMO/PPO/Dental Enrollment18.
    
    Unum Insurance Group Life Enrollment19.
    
    Unum Group Additional Life (Optional) Enrollment20.
    
    401K Beneficiary Form21.
    
    FSA Enrollment Form
 www.navisite.com
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Anthony MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-6890

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: October 19, 2017

Decided: October 24, 2017

Robert Anthony Martinez, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

*246Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Anthony Martinez seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L,Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviéwed the record and conclude that Martinez has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED*
Dick FURLONG, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. SURF CONSULTANTS, INC., as Successor, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-2509

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 23, 2018

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

This appeal is dismissed as untimely filed.

NORTHCUTT, KHOUZAM, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
## SERVED: March 19, 2014
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF HEARINGS

WASHINGTON, DC
IN THE MATTER OF

THOMAS BRAY FAADOCKETNO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] (Civil Penalty Action) FDMS NO. FAA 2013-0621
NOTICE OF HEARING DATES NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that testimony and evidence will be heard and considered onMay 30,2014, in Courtroom 406 [U.S. Tax Court], SandraDay O'Connor Courthouse, 401 West Washington Street, Phoenix, 

### AZ85003. Hearings will commence at 9:00a.m. and conclude at 4:30p.m. each day. The parties should vacate the courthouse on orbefore 5:00p.m. each day.

Richard C. Goodwin U.S. Administrative LawJudge Attachment

- Service ListSERVICE LIST ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

### Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite2W1000 1 ONE COPY 

### Lisa J. 

### Toscano, Complainant's Counsel 

### Attorney, Office ofRegional Counsel, AWP-7 Western-Pacific Region Federal Aviation Administration P.O. Box 92007 Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 TEL: 310-725-7110 FACK: 310-725-6816 Thomas H. Bray, Respondent 

### 30382 U.S. Highway 60-89, #11 Wickenburg, AZ 85390 TEL: 901-226-0142 E-MAIL: multigrainscpt@msn.com The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin,Administrative Law Judge 

### Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-5121 StaffAssistant FAC(: 202-366-7536 FDMS No. FAA-2013-0621 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W.,Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 2
Luis LA-CASSE, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2350, 3D17-2410

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 20, 2017

Upon the Court's own motion, it is ordered that the above referenced proceedings are hereby consolidated for all appellate purposes under case no. 3D17-2350.

Following review of the petition for writ of certiorari under case no. 3D17-2350, it is ordered that said petition is hereby denied.

The appeal under case no. 3D17-2410 shall be treated as a petition for writ of prohibition, and it is ordered that said petition is hereby denied.

SUAREZ, LAGOA and SCALES, JJ., concur.
Curtis BROWN v. PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SERVICES, INC.

2016-CT-00818-SCT

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Filed: February 20, 2018 Closed: April 26, 2018

Motion Desc: Appellants Petition for Writ of Certiorari.

Certiorari - Granted.
Exhibit 35



Consent of Jay Horton



I consent to the inclusion in this annual report on Form 40-F
of New Gold Inc., which is being filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, of reference to my name in connection
with, and to the use of information derived from, the technical report entitled “Technical Report on Feasibility Study for
the Blackwater Project”, dated January 22, 2014, included in the Annual Information Form of New Gold Inc. for the financial
year ended December 31, 2014, and I consent to the incorporation by reference of such information in the registration statement
on Form S-8 (File No. 333-160500) of New Gold Inc.





Dated this 27th day of March, 2015





|/s/ Jay Horton |                                                     
|-------------- | ----------------------------------------------------
|Name:          | Jay Horton, P. Eng.                                 
|Title:         | Manager, Technical Services
    
Norwest Corporation
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 29, 2019

t1021

Order 

Clerk

October 29, 2019

158598

RYAN MITCHELL,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 159598

COA: 338701 

Bay CC: 15-003594-CL

DORE & ASSOCIATES CONTRACTING,

INC.,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 13, 2018 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EX PARTE Cecil Madison FERGUSON

1160332 (CR-15-0980)

Supreme Court of Alabama.

March 10, 2017

Cert. denied.
DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. John L. MYRICK and State of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-0997

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 19, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.14











POLICY FOR DETERMINING FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR PURPOSES OF TAX WITHHOLDING ON RESTRICTED SHARES




This Policy pertains to the Amended and Restated 1986 Stock Option Plan of GCI Liberty, Inc. (Restated Effective September 26, 2014), as such plan may be amended from time to time (the “Incentive Plan”).


Solely for purposes of determining the tax withholding due upon the vesting or settlement of restricted shares under the Incentive Plan (and for the related purpose of valuing shares withheld to satisfy such tax withholding obligations), the Fair Market Value of a share of the series of GCI Liberty, Inc. (the “Corporation”) capital stock to which such award relates shall be equal to the closing price of a share of such series of the Corporation’s capital stock on the trading day next preceding the day that such award vests as reported on the consolidated transaction reporting system for the principal national securities exchange on which shares of such series of the Corporation’s capital stock are listed on such day or if such shares are not then listed on a national securities exchange, then as quoted by OTC Markets Group Inc.


To the extent necessary, this Policy shall be deemed an amendment to the Incentive Plan.


ADOPTED, by the Board of Directors and the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of GCI Liberty, Inc. on November 26, 2018.
#### Michael Alexander RIVERA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INFERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, County of Los Angeles, Alhambra Courthouse et al, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-6343

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 29, 2017

Decided: September 22, 2017

Michael Alexander Rivera,- Appellant Pro Se.

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Michael Alexander Rivera appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended that the district court dismiss Rivera’s complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction - and advised Rivera that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. *Wright v. Collins,*766 F.2d. 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); *see also Thomas v. Arn,*474 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985). Rivera failed to file objections after receiving proper notice.* Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order and deny Rivera’s motions for transcript at government expense and for appointment of a process server. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED*

*

 Although Rivera submitted two filings within the designated time period, none of the pleadings challenged the basis for the magistrate judge’s recommendation. *See United States v. Midgette,*478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007) ("[T]o preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge's réport, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection.”).