alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.23a

 

Estee Lauder Inc.

767 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10153

 

October 28, 2014

 

Effective as of November 1, 2014

 

Aerin Lauder Zinterhofer

New York, NY

 

Re: Creative Consultant Agreement

 

Dear Ms. Lauder:

 

This letter, when signed by the respective parties, will constitute an amendment (“First Amendment”) to the agreement dated April 6, 2011 (“Agreement”) between Estée Lauder, Inc. (“Estée Lauder”) and Aerin Lauder Zinterhofer.  Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Agreement.

 

1. Amendments. In consideration of the premises and of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained and other valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

 

a. Section 5.A “Personal Appearances” of the Agreement is hereby amended by adding the following sentence to the end of Section 5.A.:

 

“Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties agree that beginning on the Effective Date of this First Amendment and ending on June 30, 2015, Consultant shall be required to provide no more than sixteen (16) Service Days. For the Sixth Period, the Consultant shall be required to provide no more than twenty-five (25) Service Days.

 

b. Section 7.A “Fees and Expenses” of the Agreement is hereby amended by adding the following sentence to the end of Section 7.A.:

 

“Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties agree that beginning on the Effective Date of this First Amendment and ending on June 30, 2015, the Fee paid to the Consultant shall be Two Hundred Seventy Four Thousand Nine Hundred and Thirty-Seven Dollars ($274,937). For the Sixth Period, the Fee shall be Five Hundred Fifty-Eight Thousand Nine Hundred and One Dollars ($558,901).

 

1











 

2. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts and by facsimile, each of which, when executed and delivered to the other party, shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall be deemed one and the same instrument.

 

3. Agreement. Except as specifically amended herein, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

 

Please confirm you acceptance of the foregoing by signing where indicated below and returning a signed copy of this letter to us.

 

	
 
    	
Very   truly yours,
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Estee   Lauder Inc.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/   Sara E. Moss
    
	
 
    	
Name:
    	
Sara   E. Moss
    
	
 
    	
Title:
    	
Executive   Vice President and General Counsel
    


 

ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:

 

 

	
/s/   Aerin Lauder Zinterhofer
    	
 
    
	
Name:   Aerin Lauder Zinterhofer
    	
 
    


 

2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6330

NATHAN J. YANCEY, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus C. MOBLEY, A.L.L.S. Law Library SupervisorAssistant; MS. MILLER, Sergeant, Prison Security; D. A. GARRAGHTY, Head Warden, Greensville Correctional Center, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CA-00-1927-AM) Submitted: April 27, 2001 Decided: June 7, 2001 Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathan J. Yancey, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Nathan J. Yancey, Jr., a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Yancey v. Mobley , No. CA-00-1927-AM (E.D. Va. Feb. 8, 2001). We deny Yancey’s motion for appointment for counsel. We dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ARMANDO MARMOLEJO-CAMPOS, aka 

Campos Ramos Armando, No. 04-76644 Petitioner,

Agency No.

v.  A71-616-204

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY, Attorney ORDER General,

Respondent. 

Filed March 14, 2008

ORDER

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge: 

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it

is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Circuit

Rule 35-3. The three-judge panel opinion shall not be cited as

precedent by or to any court of the Ninth Circuit. 

2591
PRINTED FOR

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE—U.S. COURTS

BY THOMSON/WEST—SAN FRANCISCO

The summary, which does not constitute a part of the opinion of the court, is copyrighted

© 2008 Thomson/West.
##### 



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549


FORM 8-K

CURRENT REPORT

Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934

March 4, 2004 (February 27, 2004)




Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported)


CABLETEL COMMUNICATIONS CORP.




(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)


Ontario, Canada




(Jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)


1-13332
    
    8647 8525(Commission File Number)
    
    (Canadian Federal
Tax Account Number)


230 Travail Rd., Markham, Ontario, Canada L3S 3J1




(Address of principal executive offices)


(905) 475-1030




(Registrants telephone number, including area code)






---



##### 



Item 5. Other Events

On February 27, 2004, Cabletel Communications Corp. (Cabletel) announced
that it has agreed upon terms for the sale of the assets of its distribution
business to Power & Telephone Supply Company of Canada, a subsidiary of
privately-owned Power & Telephone Supply Company, an independent worldwide
distributor of material for the telecommunications and cable TV industries,
headquartered in Memphis, Tenn. The sale, which will include the current
inventory of the distribution business and the Cabletel name, is subject to a
number of customary conditions, including completion of due diligence, the
execution of definitive documentation and court approval in Ontario. Although
no assurance can be given that the transaction will be consummated, the parties
are seeking to complete the transaction on or before March 12, 2004. The
purchase price was not disclosed.

Item 7. Financial Statements and Exhibits



| | 99.1 |  | Press release dated February 27, 2004
| | ---- |  | -------------------------------------





---



##### 



SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

CABLETEL COMMUNICATIONS CORP.
                              (Registrant)Date: March 4, 2004
    
    By:
    
    /s/ D. Gregory Walling
D. Gregory Walling
President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Priya Peters-Heenpella et al., Respondents, v Cornell K. Wynn et al., Appellants.

[962 NYS2d 644]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and injury to property, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gavrin, J.), dated January 9, 2012, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion pursuant to General Municipal Law § 50-e (5) for leave to serve a late notice of claim.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, and the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim is denied.

The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim upon the defendant New York City Transit Authority (hereinafter the NYCTA). The plaintiffs’ assertion that personal injury claim forms were inadvertently served upon the City of New York rather than the NYCTA amounts to law office failure, *726which is not an acceptable excuse *(see Matter of Guminiak v City of Mount Vernon Indus. Dev. Agency,*68 AD3d 1111 [2009]; *Matter of Gobardhan v City of New York,*64 AD3d 705, 706 [2009]; *State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v New York City Tr. Auth.,*35 AD3d 718 [2006]).

Furthermore, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the NYCTA acquired timely, actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim *(see*General Municipal Law § 50-e [5]). While the plaintiffs timely served a claim for property damage and related documents upon the NYCTA, those papers did not mention any personal injury to the plaintiffs *(see Matter of Keyes v City of New York,*89 AD3d 1086 [2011]; *Matter of Jackson v Newburgh Enlarged City School Dist.,*85 AD3d 1031, 1032 [2011]; *Matter of Harper v City of New York,*69 AD3d 939, 940 [2010]). Moreover, there was no proof that the NYCTA had prepared an internal incident report *(see Washington v City of New York,*72 NY2d 881, 883 [1988]; *Matter of Cali v City of Poughkeepsie,*84 AD3d 1229, 1229-1230 [2011]; *Matter of National Grange Mut. Ins. Co. v Town of Eastchester,*48 AD3d 467, 468 [2008]; *State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v New York City Tr. Auth.,*35 AD3d 718 [2006]).

Finally, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the NYCTA was not substantially prejudiced in its ability to conduct a thorough and immediate investigation of the accident and from promptly obtaining medical examinations of the plaintiffs as a result of the plaintiffs’ lengthy delay in moving for leave to serve a late notice of claim *(see Matter of Jackson v Newburgh Enlarged City School Dist., 85*AD3d at 1032; *Santana v Western Regional Off-Track Betting Corp.,*2 AD3d 1304, 1305 [2003]; *Matter of Spaulding v Cobleskill-Richmondville Cent. School Dist.,*289 AD2d 860, 861 [2001]; *Lemma v Off Track Betting Corp.,*272 AD2d 669, 672 [2000]).

Dillon, J.E, Hall, Roman and Cohen, JJ, concur.
---

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002



I, Richard W. Donaldson, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer of Pengram Corporation (the Company), hereby certify
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 my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company, for the
      fiscal year ended November 30, 2010, and to which this certification is
      attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the Report) fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
      1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                     



| | By:    |                               
| | ------ | ------------------------------
| |        | /s/
      Richard W. Donaldson
| | Name:  | RICHARD W. DONALDSON          
| |        |                               
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer and   
| |        | Chief Financial Officer       
| |        |                               
| | Date:  | March
      15, 2011          



A signed original of this written statement required by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company
and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it
relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the
Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made
before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

---
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed January 17, 2019.

In The 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

NO. 14-18-00549-CV

JOSE REYES, Appellant 

V.

LINCAM INVESTMENTS LLC, Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 3 

Harris County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 1111166 

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

This is an appeal from a judgment signed June 25, 2018. The clerk’s record 

was filed July 19, 2018. The reporter’s record was filed October 3, 2018. No brief 

was filed.

On November 13, 2018, this court issued an order stating that unless appellant 

filed a brief on or before November 28, 2018, the court would dismiss the appeal for 

want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).
2

Appellant filed no brief or other response. Accordingly, the appeal is 

dismissed. 

 PER CURIAM 

Panel consists of Justices Wise, Zimmerer, and Spain.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2576 

To amend the Securities Act of 1933 to expand the research report exception 

to include reports about any issuer that undertakes a proposed offering 

of public securities. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 13, 2023 

Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Securities Act of 1933 to expand the research 

report exception to include reports about any issuer that 

undertakes a proposed offering of public securities. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROVISION OF RESEARCH. 

4 Section 2(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 

5 U.S.C. 77b(a)(3)) is amended— 

6 (a) by striking ‘‘an emerging growth company’’ and 

7 inserting ‘‘an issuer’’; 

8 (b) by striking ‘‘the common equity’’ and inserting 

9 ‘‘any’’; and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2576 IH

1 (c) by striking ‘‘such emerging growth company’’ and 

2 inserting ‘‘such issuer’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
[914 NE2d 1003, 886 NYS2d 86]

#### In the Matter of Anthony Peluso et al., Appellants, v Erie County Independence Party et al., Respondents, and New York State Committee of the Independence Party et al., Appellants, et al., Respondents.

Argued August 25, 2009;

decided August 26, 2009

*140APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*John Ciampoli,*Albany, for appellants.

*Jerome D. Schad,*Williamsville, *Cantor, Lukasik, Dolce, Panepinto,*Buffalo *(Sean Cooney*of counsel), and *Cheryl A. Green, County Attorney (.Kristin Klein Wheaton*of counsel), for respondents.

OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Petitioners brought this proceeding pursuant to the Election Law, the General Associations Law and CPLR article 78, seeking, among other things, a declaration that respondent Erie County Committee of the Independence Party’s rules are invalid and contrary to the rules of the State Committee of the Independence Party, as well as an injunction. The State Committee cross-petitioned, joining in petitioners’ request for declaratory relief.

The Appellate Division erred in granting summary judgment on the ground that the declaration sought is an advisory opinion (65 AD3d 820 [2009]). A declaratory judgment action is an appropriate vehicle to establish and promulgate the rights of parties on a particular subject matter, including determining the parties’ rights under state and local party rules (see *e.g. Matter of Conroy v State Comm, of Independence Party of NY.,*10 NY3d 896 [2008]).

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the case remitted to that court for consideration of issues raised but not determined on the appeal.

Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in per curiam opinion.

Order reversed, etc.
#### Webb v. Alamance Reg’l Med. Ctr., Inc.

Case below: 185 N.C. App.-(7 August 2007)

No. 449P07

Pit’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 (COA06-446)

Denied 10/11/07
From: The District Court of the 11th Judicial District. County of Flathead.

#### STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, vs. BRADLEY TUSHA, Defendant,

CAUSE NO. DC-07-136 DECISION

On March 12, 2009, the defendant was sentenced, for violation of the conditions of a suspended sentence, to five (5) years in the Montana State Prison, for the offense of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol-Fourth or Subsequent Offense, a felony. The Defendant shall not be eligible for parole until he successfully completes chemical dependency treatment.

On August 6, 2009, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present and was represented by Steve Eschenbacher. The state was not represented.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that he understood this and stated that he wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District *64Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 6th day of August, 2009.

DATED this 20th day of August, 2009.

Chairperson, Hon. Stewart Stadler, Member, Hon. Blair Jones and Member, Richard Simonton.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Inco
Limited (the registrant) on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
report), I, Scott M. Hand, Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, of the registrant, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:

(1) 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 registrant.

Dated: August 6, 2004

| |     |                  
| | --- | -----------------
| | By: | /s/ SCOTT M. HAND

| |                                             
| | --------------------------------------------
| |                                             
| | Name: Scott M. Hand                         
| | Title:  Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

The foregoing certification is being furnished
solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350 and is not being
filed as part of this report or as a separate disclosure
document.
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of China Green Creative, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Chen Feng, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1.

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

2

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

Date:  September 2, 2009

/S/ Chen Feng

Chen Feng,

Chief Financial Officer
##### 



SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549
   FORM 6-K Report of Foreign Private Issuer Pursuant to Rule 13a-16 or 15d-16 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For the month of: February 2005
    
    Commission File No.: 1-11796
 MASONITE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION  1600 Britannia Road East
Mississauga, Ontario
L4W 1J2 (Address of Principal Executive Offices) PREMDOR INC.  Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports under cover of Form
20-F or Form 40-F: Form 20-F  o                    Form 40-F  þ Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by
Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): Yes  o                    No  þ Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as permitted by
Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): Yes  o                    No  þ Indicate by check mark whether the registrant by furnishing the information contained in this Form
is also thereby furnishing the information to the Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934: Yes  o                    No  þ  If Yes is marked, indicate the file number assigned to the registrant in connection with Rule
12g3-2(b): N/A




---



##### 



SIGNATURES Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused
this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized. MASONITE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Date: February 10, 2005By:
    
    /s/ Harley Ulster

Name:  Harley Ulster
Title:    Executive Vice-President
              and Secretary




---



##### 



-ii- EXHIBIT INDEX Exhibit
    
    Description of Exhibit99.1
    
    
    Supplement to the Management Information Circular
#### In the Matter of the Arbitration between Buffalo Professional Firefighters Association, Inc., Local 282, IAFF, AFL-CIO-CLC, Respondent, and Anthony Masiello, as Mayor of the City of Buffalo, et al., Appellants.

Submitted July 13, 2009;

decided August 27, 2009

Reported below, 50 AD3d 106.

*730Motion by New York Public Employment Relations Board for leave to file a brief amicus curiae on the appeal herein granted and the proposed brief is accepted as filed. Two copies of the brief must be served and 24 copies filed within seven days.
#### State v. McLamb

Case below: 186 N.C. App.-(18 September 2007)

No. 489P07

AG’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA06-1319)

Allowed 10/08/07