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

[LETTERHEAD]


October 31, 1997


Victor Cohen, Esq.
Senior Vice President and General Counsel
POLO RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION
650 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10022

     RE:  AMENDMENT TO SUBLICENSE AGREEMENT

Dear Mr. Cohen:

     Reference is hereby made to the Sublicense Agreement dated as of July 1, 
1995 between Ralph Lauren Home Collection, Inc. ("RLHC"), successor to The 
Ralph Lauren Home Collection, and Pillowtex Corporation ("Pillowtex") (the 
"Agreement").

     As you are aware, Pillowtex has entered into a merger agreement pursuant 
to which it will acquire ownership of Fieldcrest Cannon, Inc. ("Fieldcrest") 
through a merger (the "Merger") of a wholly owned subsidiary of Pillowtex 
with and into Fieldcrest. It is now our mutual desire to amend the Agreement 
in certain respects effective as of the effective time of the Merger. This 
letter will, therefore, serve to express, and, once signed by RLHC and 
Pillowtex, will constitute, the following amendment to the Agreement:

  1. Paragraph 13.1(xii) of the Agreement is hereby amended to change both 
     references to 40% in clause (a) of such paragraph to 25%.

  2. In all respects, and as so amended, the Agreement shall remain in full 
     force and effect according to its terms and conditions and is hereby 
     confirmed and ratified. Pillowtex acknowledges that the provisions of 
     paragraph 2.11 of the Agreement shall apply to Fieldcrest upon 
     consummation of the Merger; provided, however, that the parties expressly 
     agree that Fieldcrest may continue to deal with those names for which 
     Fieldcrest manufactures and/or distributes products as of the date hereof, 
     provided that Fieldcrest shall not expand its product offering with respect
     to any fashion apparel designer name pursuant to the foregoing without 
     RLHC's prior written consent.
     
<PAGE>

Victor Cohen, Esq.
October 31, 1997
Page 2


     It is the parties' understanding that the foregoing amendment is 
conditioned upon the consummation of the Merger. If the foregoing is 
acceptable to you, please indicate your acceptance and approval by signing in 
the space provided below, and return one copy of this letter to John 
Sterling, Legal Department, so executed.

                                        Sincerely,


                                        /s/ John H. Karnes
                                        John H. Karnes
                                        Vice President
                                        and General Counsel

JFS:dgf


ACCEPTED AND AGREED:

RALPH LAUREN HOME COLLECTION, INC.


By: /s/ (Signature Illegible)
   -----------------------------------
Title: President
      --------------------------------
#### I. M. WELCH v. PHŒNIX INSURANCE COMPANY, Ltd.

(Filed 31 December, 1926.)

Insurance, Fire — Contracts—Stipulations—Requirements as to Time of Bringing Action.

Where the plaintiff has delayed bringing his action to recover loss by fire under a standard form of insurance, beyond the time therein specified, without evidence of a waiver of this provision of the policy, a judgment as of nonsuit thereon is properly granted.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Oglesby, J.,*at June Term, 1926, of Graham. Affirmed.

Action on policy of insurance. From judgment dismissing the action, as upon nonsuit, at the close of all the evidence, plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.

*H. L. Phillips for plaintiff.*

*Merrimon, Adams & Adams for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

The policy on which plaintiff seeks to recover is a Standard Fire Insurance Policy of the State of North Carolina, C. S., 6436-37. It is dated 6 November, 1924, and insures plaintiff and another, as their respective interests may appear, for the term of one year, against loss and damage by fire to property described therein. The policy contains the following clause:

“No suit or action on this policy, for the recovery of any claim, shall be sustainable in any court of law or equity, unless the insured shall have complied with all the requirements of this policy, nor unless commenced within twelve months next after the fire.”

Plaintiff's evidence tended to show that the property covered by the policy was destroyed by fire in November, 1924, after the issuance of the policy; this action was commenced on 16 March, 1926. The judgment dismissing the action is sustained upon the authority of *Tatham v. Insurance Co.,*181 N. C., 434.

Plaintiff’s contention that defendant had waived the provision in the policy limiting the time within which an action must be commenced, cannot be sustained. Neither denial of liability nor refusal to pay the loss is a waiver of this provision. 26 C. J., 481. Section 676. There is no evidence of any intent on the part of defendant not to rely upon this provision, or of any conduct on its part which caused plaintiff to delay bringing his action.

There are other grounds upon which the judgment may well be sustained. Failure of plaintiff, however, to commence the action within *810twelve months next after the fire, without allegation and proof of waiver or estoppel, precluding this defense is sufficient. The decisions of this Court are all to this effect. *Beard v. Sovereign Lodge,*184 N. C., 154, and cases cited in the opinion by *Adams, J.*The judgment is

Affirmed.
exv10w5







	 	 	 	 	 



Exhibit 10.5




AMENDMENT NO. 2

TO THE NACCO MATERIALS HANDLING GROUP, INC.

UNFUNDED BENEFIT PLAN

(As Amended and Restated Effective as of April 24, 2009)





     NACCO Materials Handling Group, Inc. hereby adopts this Amendment No. 2 to the NACCO Materials
Handling Group, Inc. Unfunded Benefit Plan (As Amended and Restated Effective as of April 24, 2009)
(the “Plan”), to be effective as of February 9, 2010. Words used herein with initial capital
letters which are defined in the Plan are used herein as so defined.



Section 1



     Section 11.4 of the Plan is hereby amended by adding the following new Subsection (d) to the
end thereof, to read as follows:



     “(d) Notwithstanding the foregoing, or any other provision of the Plan to the contrary, NACCO
Industries, Inc. shall be responsible for the payment of the amounts described in Section 7.1(a)(Y)
that were credited to Participant’s Accounts for the 2009 Plan Year. In furtherance thereof, but
without limiting the foregoing, NACCO Industries, Inc. shall not be responsible for the payment of
any other Excess Retirement Benefits under the Plan.”


EXECUTED this 9th day of February, 2010.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	NACCO MATERIALS HANDLING GROUP, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Charles A. Bittenbender
 	 
	 	 	Charles A. Bittenbender 	 
	 	 	Title:  	 Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary  	 
	 


NACCO Industries, Inc. agrees to the terms of this Amendment No. 2.



EXECUTED this 9th day of February, 2010.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	NACCO INDUSTRIES, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Charles A. Bittenbender
 	 
	 	 	Charles A. Bittenbender 	 
	 	 	Title:  	 Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary  	 
	 



1
### IN THE UNI TED STATES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCUIT

No. 11-30953 Summary Calendar

CARLOS A. MCGREW, Plaintiff-Appellant

v. LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY MEN TAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT; KATIE ARD, Doctor; DAVE ANKENBRAND; CAROL GILCREASE, Director; JOHN DOES; N

. B UR L CAIN, Warden; KENNETH NORRIS, Warden; JONATHAN A. ROUNDTREE, Doctor; CHAD MENZINA, Unit Manager; RAY VITTORIO, Colonel; TRENT BARTON, Admini s t rative Major; LOUISIANA STATE PENITENTIARY MEDICAL DEPARTMENT; JAMES LEBLANC , Department of Corrections, Secretary, Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:11-CV-549

Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Carlos A. McGrew, Texas prisoner # 413135, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s dismissal of his action without prejudice for failing t o p ay the court’s filing fee. McGrew’s motion for U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Janu ary24 , 20 12 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court hasd ete rm inedthat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-30953 Document: 00511734498 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/24/2012No. 11-30953

leave to proceed IFP in the district c o u rt w as denied pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) on the grounds that McGrew had, on more than three prior occasions, while incarcerated, brought a n a c t i o n in federal court that was dismissed as frivolous or for failure to state a claim, and McGrew’s claims did not reflect that McGrew was under “imminent danger of serious physical injury.” § 1915(g). In McGrew’s motion for IFP filed in this court, he argues that at the time he filed his complaint in the district court, he was under “imminent danger of serious physical injury” due to (1) exposure to extreme heat and harsh living conditions at the prison, and (2) deprivation of adequate mental health care, sp e cifically, the withholding of medication to combat the side effects of Risperdal, one of his prescribed medications. The determination whether a prisoner is under “imminent danger” must be made at the time the prisoner seeks to file his suit in district court, when he files his notice of appeal, or when he moves for IFP status. Baños v. O’Guin , 144 F.3d 883, 884-85 ( 5 th Cir. 1998). Thus, in this case, we analyze whether McGrew was under imminent danger at the time that he filed his appellate IFP motion. See id. McGrew does not assert, much less establish, that he was under imminent dang e r o f s erious physical injury when he filed his appellate IFP motion. See Baños, 144 F.3d at 884-85. IT IS O R D E R E D that McGrew’s motion for leave to proceed IFP is D E NIED, and the appeal is DISMISSED. The appeal may be reinstated if McGrew pays the appellate filing fee within 30 days of this dismissal.

2 Case: 11-30953 Document: 00511734498 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/24/2012
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Brian Roberts, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), rendered March 19, 1987, convicting him of attempted promoting of prison contraband in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

*559Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Mangano, P. J., Kunzeman, Kooper, Sullivan and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 56 (Thursday, March 23, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15325-15326]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7098]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------


UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY

Meeting of the Advisory Board for Cuba Broadcasting

    The Advisory Board for Cuba Broadcasting will conduct a meeting at 
10 a.m. on Friday, March 24, 1995, at the Doral Hotel and Resort, 4400 
NW. 87th Avenue, Miami, Florida. The intended agenda is listed below.

Presidential Advisory Board Meeting, March 24, 1995

Agenda

I. Continuation of the Discussion on the Feasibility Study on Radio and 
T.V. Marti Relocation
II. Old Business
III. New Business

    Members of the public interested in attending the meeting should 
contact Ms. Angela R. Washington, at the Advisory Board Office. Ms. 
Washington can be reached at (202) 401-2178.
    Due to the limited availability of Advisory Board members and other 
scheduling problems and the need to move the project forward, this 
announcement will appear for less than 15 days.

    [[Page 15326]] Dated: March 17, 1995.
Yvonne F. Soler,
Executive Director, Presidential Advisory Board for Cuba Broadcasting.
[FR Doc. 95-7098 Filed 3-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8230-01-M
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Theresa Q. Hoffmann, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Universal Capital Management, Inc.;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15 (e) and 15d-15 (e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  December 20, 2010



/s/ Theresa Q. Hoffmann

Theresa Q. Hoffmann

Principal Financial Officer
Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circumstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 20599 Su m m ar yC al endar
H U E YP W A L T E R S , Pet i t i o ne r - Appe l l ant
v. RI CK T HALER, DI RE CT O R, TEXAS D EP AR TM EN T O F CR I M I NAL J U STI CE, C O R R E C T IO N A L IN S T IT U T IO N S D IV IS IO N , R espon den t
- A pp el l ee
A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e S ou t h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 05- C V

- 1026
B ef ore G A R Z A , C L E M E N T , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * H u ey W al t ers, T e x a s p ri soner # 501 052 , w as convi ct ed i n 198 7 of agg ravated s e x u a l assau l tan d w as sentenced to 60 yea rs i n pri son. W al t ers appeal s t he di st r i c tc our t ’ s deni alof hi s 28 U
. S. C
. § 2254 pet i t i on, ar gui ng t hat pr i s o n o f

f i c i al s ( 1) ha d fail e d t o a w ar d a l lo f t he g o o d- t i m e cr edi t s t o w hi c h he w as e nt i t l e d up o n hi s c o m pl e t i o n o f an e duc at i o n pr o gr am i n D e c e m be r2 00 3 and ( 2) ha d fai l ed to back da t e t h e aw ard of t h ose c redi t s t o hi s s en t en ce- begin date, United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D Ma rch 15, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 08-20599 Document: 00511051137 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2010N o. 08- 20599

2 i n vi ol ati on of

t h e F i f t h A m en dm en t ’ s D u e P roces s andE x P ostF act o C l au ses an d of t h e F ou rt een t h A m en dm en t . W e gran t ed a cert if i cat e of app eal abili t y on th e fir s ti s s u e o n ly
. W al t e rsv . Q uar t e r m an , N o. 08- 20599 ( 5t h C i r . June 17, 2 0 0 9 ) (u n p u b li sh e d). D u ri n g th e p en d en cyof th i s ap p ea l , W a l ters w a s relea sed f rom p ri son to m a n d a torysu p erv i sion
. A s a re su l t, W a l ters’ s a p p ea l h a s b ee n ren d ere dm oo t. Se eSpe nc e rv . Kem na , 5 2 3 U .S . 1 , 7 (1 9 9 8 ); Bai leyv . So ut he r land , 821 F. 2d 277, 2 7 8 -7 9 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 7 ). A c c o r d in g l y , t h e A P P E A L is D IS M IS S E D a s M O O T
. W a l t e r s ’ s mo t i o n t o e x p e d i t e t h e a p p e a li s DE NI ED
. Case: 08-20599 Document: 00511051137 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/15/2010
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4328

SPM Flow Control, Inc. DBA Weir SPM:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
#### In the Interest of S.P.H., Plaintiff. Joann DOUGHERTY and Timothy F. Dougherty, Respondents, v. Leo F. HALLORAN and Kathleen L. Halloran, Appellants.

No. WD 51302.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

May 21, 1996.

Rodger J. Walsh, Independence, for appellants.

Sharlie Pender, Independence, for respondents.

Before HANNA, P.J., and SMART and ELLIS, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Leo F. Halloran and Kathleen L. Halloran, the paternal grandparents of S.P.H., appeal from an order of the Family Court Division of the Jackson County Circuit Court which denied their petition for Guardianship of S.P.H., granted Letters of Guardianship to Joann Dougherty and Timothy Dougherty, and awarded specific visitation to the Hallo-rans.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
#### Q.T. HANSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 156-90.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

June 6, 1990.

Rick Bowman, Fort Worth, for appellant.

Tim Curry, Dist. Atty., and C. Chris Marshall and David K. Chapman, Asst. Dist. Attys., Fort Worth, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION ON STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appeal is taken from a conviction of driving while intoxicated. After trial by jury, the court assessed appellant’s punishment at ninety days confinement and a three hundred dollar fine. Both the fine and jail time were probated.

On direct appeal, the Court of Appeals found the evidence insufficient to support appellant’s conviction and, therefore, remanded the cause to the trial court with an order to enter a judgment of acquittal. *Hanson v. State,*781 S.W.2d 445 (Tex.App.—Ft. Worth 1989). We granted the State’s petition for discretionary review.

A motion to abate the appeal has been filed on behalf of appellant. Attached to the motion is a certified copy of appellant’s certificate of death. The certificate recites appellant died on February 4, 1989. The opinion by the Court of Appeals, however, was delivered on November 30, 1989.

The death, of an appellant during the pendency of an appeal deprives both this Court and the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction. See *August v. State,*685 S.W.2d 56 (Tex.Crim.App.1985). Under those circumstances, the appropriate disposition is the abatement of the appeal. Tex.R.App.Pro. 9(b). The appeal and any further proceedings in the court below are ordered permanently abated.

Furthermore, it should be noted that our abatement of an appeal under these unique circumstances should not be considered an endorsement of the reasoning or disposition employed by the Court of Appeals in the instant case.
Exhibit
      32





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 this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Ridgewood Electric Power
      Trust II (the “Trust”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2006, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      each of the undersigned officers of the Trust hereby certifies, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. (section) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (section) 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:





(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 results of operations of the Trust.








/s/
                Randall D. HolmesName:
            Randall
                D. HolmesTitle:
            Chief
                Executive Officer
              (Principal
                Executive Officer)Dated:
            January
                25, 2008








/s/
                Jeffrey H. StrasbergName:
            Jeffrey
                H. StrasbergTitle:
            Executive
                Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal
                Financial and Accounting Officer)Dated:
            January
                25, 2008
#### Raymond FARMER, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 49247.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Jan. 31, 1995.

Rebecca L. Kurz, Asst. Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Christine M. Kocot, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before BRECKENRIDGE, P.J., and ELLIS and STITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM

Appeal from denial of Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief after an evidentiary hearing.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).