alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.3(e)



 Exhibit 10.3(e) 
 AMENDMENT TO RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT AGREEMENT 
 Masonite International Corporation (the
“Company”), formerly Masonite International Inc., and the Participant, as defined in the Agreement and set forth below, (collectively referred to as the “Parties”) entered into a Restricted Stock Unit Agreement dated July 5, 2011
(the “Agreement”). The parties have herein agreed to amend the Agreement to modify the vesting dates from the current date of December 31st of each year to November 1st of each year effective as of October 31, 2012. 

 

	 	1.	For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged by the Parties, the Parties hereby amend the Agreement and replace
paragraph 3(a) in its entirety with the following: 

 3(a) General. Except as
otherwise provided in this Section 3, RSUs subject to this grant shall vest as follows, provided that the Participant is then employed by the Company and/or one of its Subsidiaries or Affiliates on each such vesting date: (i) fifty percent (50%) on
November 1, 2012, (ii) twenty-five percent (25%) on November 1, 2013 and (iii) twenty-five percent (25%) on November 1, 2014. 
  

	 	2.	The defined terms and conditions used in this Amendment shall have the same meaning as those set forth in the Agreement. 


 

	 	3.	The remaining terms and conditions contained in the Agreement shall continue to have full force and effect. 


 

	 	4.	This Amendment together with the Agreement and the Plan contain the entire agreement between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter contained herein, and
supersedes all prior agreements or prior understandings, whether written or oral, between the parties relating to such subject matter. This Agreement may be further modified or amended by a writing signed by both the Company and the Participant.


 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of October 31, 2012. 

 



			
	Masonite International Corporation
		
	By: 	 	 


Printed Name: 
 Title: 

 




			
	Participant
		
	By:	 	 


			
		
	Printed Name:
# C_2011103EN.01001901.xml

| 2.4.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.4.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/19

---

Judgment of the General Court of 18 February 2011 — P.P.TV v OHIM — Rentrak (PPT)

(Case T-118/07) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark PPT - Earlier national figurative mark PPTV - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

2011/C 103/32

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: P.P.TV — Publicidade de Portugal e Televisão, SA (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: I. de Carvalho Simões and J.M. Conceição Pimenta, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Laitinen and, subsequently, D. Botis, Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: Rentrak Corp. (Portland, Oregon, United States)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 17 January 2007 (Case R 1040/2005-1) concerning opposition proceedings between P.P.TV — Publicidade de Portugal e Televisão, SA and Rentrak Corp.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders P.P.TV — Publicidade de Portugal e Televisão, SA, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders P.P.TV — Publicidade de Portugal e Televisão, SA, to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 7.7.2007.

1

---
#### STATE ex rel. Bobby KNOX v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2002-KH-2426.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

In re Knox, Bobby; — Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, *630Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court Div. I, Nos. 96-1495, 96-1863; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No(s). 99-KH-1407, 00-KH-251.

Denied.
#### In the Matter of Stephen R. URBINATO. Petition for Reinstatement from Inactive Status.

No. 127 DB 2002.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Aug. 1, 2003.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 1st day of August, 2003, The Report and Recommendations of The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dated June 27, 2003, are approved and IT IS ORDERED that STEPHEN R. URBINATO, who has been on inactive status, has never been suspended or disbarred, and has demonstrated that he has the moral qualifications, competency and learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is, hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation *955and processing of the Petition for Reinstatement shall be paid by the Petitioner.
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Seventh Chamber) of 16 September 2009 – Offshore Legends v OHIM – Acteon (OFFSHORE
LEGENDS in black and white and OFFSHORE LEGENDS in blue, black and green)**

**(Joined Cases T-305/07 and T-306/07)**

Community trade mark – Opposition proceedings – Application for two Community figurative marks OFFSHORE LEGENDS, one in black and white, the other in blue, black and green
– Earlier national figurative mark OFFSHORE 1 – Relative grounds for refusal – Likelihood of confusion – Similarity of goods and signs – Absence of request for proof of genuine use of the earlier mark – Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009) – Article 43(2) and (3) of Regulation No 40/94 in conjunction with Article 15(2)(a) of Regulation No 40/94 (now Article 42(2)
and (3) and point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 15(1) of Regulation No 207/2009)

Community trade mark – Definition and acquisition of the Community trade mark – Relative grounds for refusal – Opposition by the proprietor of an earlier identical or similar mark registered for identical or similar goods or services
– Likelihood of confusion with the earlier mark (Council Regulation No 40/94, Art. 8(1)(b)) (see paras 60-61, 98-103)

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Two actions brought against two decisions of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 29 May 2007 (Case R 1031/2006-2 and Case R 1038/2006-2) relating to opposition proceedings between Acteon and Offshore Legends. |

**Information relating to the case**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| Applicant for the Community trade mark: | Offshore Legends |
| Community trade mark sought: | Figurative marks OFFSHORE LEGENDS in black and white and OFFSHORE LEGENDS in blue, black and green for goods in Classes 3, 9, 14, 18, 20, 24, 25, 28 and 35 – Application Nos 3160231 and 2997021 |
| Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: | Acteon |
| Mark or sign cited in opposition: | National and international figurative mark OFFSHORE 1 for products in Classes 16, 18 and 25 |
| Decision of the Opposition Division: | Opposition dismissed in respect of all the contested goods |
| Decision of the Board of Appeal: | Partial annulment of the decision of the Opposition Division, to the extent that it dismissed the opposition in respect of products in Classes 18 and 25 |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the actions; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Offshore Legends to pay the costs. |
David C. SUTTON & Erika Sutton, Plaintiff, v. ESTATE OF Norman H. SHACKLEY, Jr., Defendant.

No. COA17-824

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: May 15, 2018

AFFIRMED.
STATE of North Carolina v. William Jesse BUCHANAN

No. 305P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 7, 2017

Ronald D. Williams, II, Assistant Attorney General.

William Jesse Buchanan, for Buchanan, William Jesse.

Robert S. Banks, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the application filed by Defendant on the 27th of November 2017 in this matter for Writ of Habeas Corpus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Yancey County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of December 2017."
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 25 March 2009 – Alcoa Trasformazioni v Commission**

**(Case T-332/06)**

State aid – Electricity – Preferential tariff – Decision initiating the procedure under Article 88(2) EC – Admissibility – Concept of State aid – New aid or existing aid – Advantage – Statement of reasons – Legitimate expectations – Legal certainty

1.                     *Actions for annulment – Actionable measures – Measures producing legal effects* – *Decision to open a formal procedure to investigate a State measure in the course of implementation accompanied by provisional
classification as new aid (Arts 87(1) EC, 88(2) and (3) EC and 230 EC) (see paras 34-36)*

2.                     *State aid – Commission decision to open a formal procedure to investigate a State measure – Provisional nature of the Commission’s
assessments (Art. 88(2) EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 6) (see paras 59-60)*

3.                     *State aid – Commission decision to open a formal procedure to investigate a State measure provisionally classified as new
aid – Duty to state reasons (Arts 88(2) EC and 253 EC; Council Regulation No 659/1999, Art. 6) (see paras 78-80)*

4.                     *Community law – Principles – Protection of legitimate expectations – Legal certainty (see paras 102-108)*

5.                     *State aid – Existing aid and new aid – Modification affecting the substance of a measure not initially classified as aid –
Measure having to be investigated in the context of the procedure applicable to new aid (Arts 87 EC and 88 EC) (see paras
128-129)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2006/C 214/03, notified to the Italian Republic by letter of 19 July 2006, initiating the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) EC, concerning State aid C 36/06 (ex NN 38/06) – Preferential electricity tariff to energy intensive industries in Italy, in so far as that decision relates to the electricity tariffs applicable to the two primary aluminium plants owned by Alcoa Trasformazioni. |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Dismisses the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders Alcoa Trasformazioni Srl to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Commission. |
Exhibit 10.44
 GREENHILL & CO., INC. EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN
 . Purpose. Plan Company
 . Definitions.
 Affiliate
 Award
 Award Agreement
 Board Board of Directors
 Change in Control




---



##### 



Code
 Committee
 Covered Employee
 Disability
 Eligible Person
 Fair Market Value
 Incentive Stock Option
 Non-Qualified Stock Option
 2




---



##### 



Option
 Other Stock-Based Award
 Participant
 Performance Award
 Performance Period
 Person
 Restricted Stock
 Restricted Stock Unit
 Retirement
 Share
 Subsidiary
 Substitute Award
 3




---



##### 



. Administration.
  Shares Subject to the Plan; Limits on Awards.
  4




---



##### 



. Eligibility.
 Options.
 Exercise Price.
 Term and Termination of Options
 Exercise of Option.
 5




---



##### 



. Incentive Stock Options.
 . Restricted Stock and Restricted Stock Unit Awards.
    . Other Stock-Based Awards.
 6




---



##### 



. Performance Awards.
 General
 Performance Awards Granted to Covered Employees.
 Performance Goals Generally.
 7




---



##### 



Business Criteria.
 Settlement of Performance Awards; Other Terms.
 . Termination of Employment
   8




---



##### 



9




---



##### 



. Adjustment.
 . Change In Control.
 10




---



##### 



. Compliance with Laws; Transferability.
  Limits on Transferability; Beneficiaries. provided however
 . Certain Tax Provisions.
 Withholding
 11




---



##### 



Requirement of Notification Upon Disqualifying Disposition Under Code Section 421(b)
 Section 409A of the Code
 . General Provisions.
    12




---



##### 



. Effective Date; Amendment and Termination.
  provided, however
 13




---



##### 



provided, however
 . Governing Law.
 14
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00615-CV

In re North Forest Independent School District, et al.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a). The stay

of the record review hearing at the Texas Education Agency issued bythis Court on October 2, 2008,

is lifted.

__________________________________________

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Waldrop and Henson

Filed: October 16, 2008
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Cedrick Haigler, Appellant.

[718 NYS2d 838]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jerome Hornblass, J.), rendered September 4, 1996, *convicting*defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 41/2 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis upon which to disturb the jury’s determinations concerning credibility. The evidence, viewed as a whole, supported a reasonable inference that defendant acted as a steerer in the drug transaction *(see, People v Bello,*92 NY2d 523). Concur — Tom, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Christopher Lance, Plaintiff-Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>NY1 Transmissions, Inc., Defendant-Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Sabrina B. Kraus, J.), entered December 12, 2017, after trial, in favor of defendant dismissing the action.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><br>Judgment (Sabrina B. Kraus, J.), entered December 12, 2017, affirmed, with costs.<p>A judgment rendered in the Small Claims Part of the Civil Court will be sustained on appeal unless it is shown that "substantial justice has not been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (CCA 1807). Applying that limited standard of review here and giving due deference to the trial court's findings of fact and negative assessment of plaintiff's credibility (<i>see Williams v Roper, </i>269 AD2d 125 [2000], <i>lv dismissed</i> 95 NY2d 898 [2000]), we find no basis to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court in dismissing the action. The evidence, fairly interpreted, supports the court's determination that plaintiff failed to establish that the automotive repair services rendered by defendant were defective.</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: November 26, 2018<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
STATE of North Carolina v. Michael Bernard PERRY, Defendant.

No. COA17-223

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 19, 2017

NO ERROR.
SILVER, et al. v. The HALIFAX COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS

338A17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 26, 2017

Mr. Mark Dorosin, Ms. Elizabeth M. Haddix, Ms. Eileen O'Connor, Mr. Allen Buansi, Attorney at Law, For Silver, LaTonya, et al.

Mr. Brent Ducharme, Attorney at Law.

Mr. Garris Neil Yarborough, Glynn Rollins, Attorney at Law, For The Halifax County Board Of Commissioners.

Mr. K. Ricky Watson, Jr., Co-Director of Youth Justice Project.

Ms. Peggy Nicholson, Attorney at Law, Mr. Seth Ascher, Ms. Jennifer Story, Mr. George Hausen, Jr., Legal Aid.

Wm Hodge, Ms. Jennifer W. Marsh, Director of Research.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 25th of October 2017 by Plaintiffs:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th of October 2017."
STATE of North Carolina v. Sam Babb CLONTS, III

No. 222A17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 07, 2017

Daniel M. Blau, Attorney at Law, Robert Hale, Jr., Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Clonts, Sam Babb (III).

Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 6th of July 2017 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of December 2017."

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by State of NC on the 24th of July 2017 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of December 2017."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
STATE of North Carolina v. Keith D. WILSON

No. 47P09-3

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 7, 2018

Keith D. Wilson, for Wilson, Keith D.

Amy C. Kunstling, Assistant Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of NC

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 30th of April 2018 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of June 2018."

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 30th of April 2018 by Defendant to Appoint Counsel:

"Motion Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of June 2018."
STATE of North Carolina v. Charles Samuel Leroy CASEY, Defendant.

No. COA17-263

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 7, 2017

NO ERROR.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

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

      In connection with the Annual Report of TELE CENTRO OESTE CELULAR
PARTICIPACOES S.A. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2003, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Sergio Assenco Tavares dos Santos, Chief
Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best
of my knowledge:

            (i)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                  and

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

    Date: June 30, 2004

By: /s/  Sergio Assenco Tavares dos Santos
    -----------------------------------------------
         Name: Sergio Assenco Tavares dos Santos
         Title:  Chief Executive Officer
Andrea Kirby CROWELL v. William Worrell CROWELL

No. 31A18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 28, 2018

Thomas D. Bumgardner, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for Crowell, Andrea Kirby.

Amy Simpson Fiorenza, Attorney at Law, for Crowell, William Worrell.

***ORDER***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th of June 2018 by Plaintiff for Temporary Stay:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of June 2018."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 27th of June 2018 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of June 2018."
# C_2009267EN.01000901.xml

| 7.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 267/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 267/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 8 September 2009 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal de Pequena Instância Criminal do Porto (Portugal)) — Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional (CA/LPFP), Bwin International Ltd, formerly Baw International Ltd v Departamento de Jogos da Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa

(Case C-42/07) (1)

1

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 49 EC - Restrictions on the freedom to provide services - Offer of games of chance via the internet)

2009/C 267/15

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Tribunal de Pequena Instância Criminal do Porto

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Liga Portuguesa de Futebol Profissional (CA/LPFP), Bwin International Ltd, formerly Baw International Ltd

Applicants:

Defendant: Departamento de Jogos da Santa Casa da Misericórdia de Lisboa

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Tribunal de Pequena Instância Criminal do Porto — Interpretation of Articles 43 EC, 49 EC and 56 EC — National legislation granting a specific organisation the exclusive rights to operate games of chance and lotteries, and classing as administrative offences the activities of organising, promoting and collecting bets on sporting events, including over the internet — Prohibition of an undertaking which operates betting and lotteries online, and having its registered office in another Member State, from promoting, organising or operating such betting and lotteries over the internet or from awarding the value of the prizes to the winners

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 49 EC does not preclude legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which prohibits operators such as Bwin International Ltd, which are established in other Member States, in which they lawfully provide similar services, from offering games of chance via the internet within the territory of that Member State.

---

(1)  OJ C 69, 24.3.2007.

1

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Layton Allen WATERS

No. 188P17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 28, 2017

Jillian C. Katz, Assistant Appellant Defender, for Waters, Layton Allen.

Teresa M. Postell, Assistant Attorney General, Greg Newman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 12th of June 2017 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of September 2017."