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

 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT

 

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO EXECUTIVE AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the 21st day of February, 2007, between and among Roundy’s Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), Roundy’s Supermarkets, Inc. (f/k/a/ “Roundy’s, Inc.”), a Wisconsin corporation (“Roundy’s”) and Robert A. Mariano (“Executive”).

 

The Company, Roundy’s and Executive are parties to an “Executive Agreement” (the “Original Agreement”) dated as of June 6, 2002, pursuant to which, among other things, Executive has acquired certain shares of the capital stock of the Company and is employed by Roundy’s. The parties wish to amend the Original Agreement to extend its term by one year.

 

NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree that Section 13(a) of the Original Agreement is hereby amended to change the word “fifth” as it appears in that section to “sixth.” In all other respects the Original Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its original terms.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this First Amendment, as of the date first written above.

 

	
ROUNDY’S ACQUISITION CORP.
    	
 
    	
ROUNDY’S SUPERMARKETS, INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:
    	
/s/ John R. Willis
    	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/ Edward G. Kitz
    
	
 
    	
John R. Willis, Vice   President & Sec’y
    	
 
    	
 
    	
Edward G. Kitz, Group V.P.   - Legal, Risk & Treasury
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
EXECUTIVE:
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
/s/ Robert A. Mariano
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    	
Robert A. Mariano
    


 

By their signatures below, the undersigned “Investors” (as that term is defined in the Original Agreement), collectively holding a majority of the common and preferred stock of the Company, hereby consent to and approve the foregoing First Amendment to Executive Agreement.

 

	
WILLIS   STEIN & PARTNERS III, L.P.
    	
 
    	
WILLIS STEIN & PARTNERS   DUTCH III-A, L.P.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:
    	
/s/ Avy H. Stein
    	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/ Avy H. Stein
    
	
 
    	
Avy H. Stein, Manager
    	
 
    	
 
    	
Avy H. Stein, Manager
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
WILLIS   STEIN & PARTNERS DUTCH III-B, L.P.
    	
 
    	
WILLIS   STEIN & PARTNERS III-C, L.P.
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
 
    
	
By:
    	
/s/ Avy H. Stein
    	
 
    	
By:
    	
/s/ Avy H. Stein
    
	
 
    	
Avy H. Stein, Manager
    	
 
    	
 
    	
Avy H. Stein, Manager
    


 

2
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I,
James W. Buckee, Chief Executive Officer of Talisman Energy Inc., certify that:

March 13,
2006

|
|

|By: |  | /s/JAMES W. BUCKEE |                                      
|--- |  | ------------------ | -------------------------------------
|    |  | Name:              | James W. Buckee                      
|    |  | Title:             | President and Chief Executive Officer

---



CERTIFICATIONS

I,
Michael D. McDonald, Executive Vice-President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of Talisman Energy Inc., certify that:

March 13,
2006

|
|

|By: |  | /s/MICHAEL D. MCDONALD |                                                              
|--- |  | ---------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------
|    |  | Name:                  | Michael D. McDonald                                          
|    |  | Title:                 | Executive Vice-President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

The
Board of Directors
City National Corporation:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-01993, 333-87719, 333-61854, 333-88118,
33-56632, 333-151375 and 333-139215) on Form S-8, (No. 333-104395) on Form S-4 and
(No. 333-156275) on Form S-3ASR of City National Corporation of our reports dated February 26, 2009, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of
City National Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, and the related consolidated statements of earnings, shareholders' equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows
for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2008, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2008, which
reports appear in the December 31, 2008 annual report on Form 10-K of City National Corporation.

Our
report on the consolidated financial statements refers to changes in 2008 in City National Corporation's method of accounting for fair value, and in 2007 City National Corporation
changed its method of accounting for uncertainty in income taxes.

KPMG LLP

Los
Angeles, California
February 26, 2009

---



QuickLinks
#### LO CICERO v. CONTINENTAL BAKING CO.

No. C-11756.

United States District Court E. D. New York.

Nov. 6, 1952.

*244Natale & Natale, Brooklyn, N. Y. (Martin G. Stein, Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel), for plaintiffs.

Thomas F. Keane, Brooklyn, N. Y., for defendant.

BYERS, District Judge.

Defendant moves under Rule 14, Fed. Rules Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C.A. for an order permitting it to add as third-party defendants Middleton Table and Novelty Co. and Pal Trucking Co., both residents of New York.

The action was commenced in the Supreme Court, Kings County, but it was later removed to this Court, on motion of defendant, because of diversity of citizenship, plaintiffs being residents of New York and defendant a Delaware corporation.

The action is one for personal injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiff, Anthony Lo Cicero, as a result of his having been struck by defendant’s automobile.

In support of its motion, defendant alleges that at the time and place of the accident there were two other automobiles, owned by the persons sought to be impleaded, improperly parked so as to contribute to the happening of the accident, and it urges, therefore, that if it be held accountable to plaintiffs it will be entitled to *contribution*from the owners of those automobiles.

It has been held that Rule 14 does not permit a defendant to bring in an alleged joint tort-feasor in an action in a federal court sitting in the State of New York, since the New York statutory right of contribution between joint tort-feasors does not arise until recovery of judgment against one of them1 and that this is a rule of substantive rather than procedural law, Brown v. Cranston, 2 Cir., 132 F.2d 631, 148 A.L.R. 1178, certiorari denied 319 U.S. 741, 63 S.Ct. 1028, 87 L.Ed. 1698. In the Brown case, supra, Judge A. N. Hand said, 132 F.2d at page 634:

> “In spite of the great convenience and advantage of applying Rule 14 in the present case we feel impelled to hold that we are precluded from doing this by the interpretation of the New York statutes by its highest court,” (referring to Fox v. Western New York Motor Lines, Inc., 257 N.Y. 305, 178 N.E. 289, 78 A.L.R. 578).

The motion is denied. Settle order on notice.

1

*.*New York Civil Practice Act, § 211-a.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0621 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. BRITTNEY ANN ALLEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including August 8, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 1 2022

07/01/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0621
#### Bryan William HUSBAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Commissioner, Michael J. Astrue, Defendants-Appellee.

No. 11-4723.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Decided Nov. 20, 2012.

Amended Nov. 21, 2012.

*31Sarah H. Bohr, Bohr *&*Harrington, LLC, Atlantic Beach, FL; Judith Brown-low, Brownlow Law PLLC, Brattleboro, VT, for Appellant.

Timothy Landry, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Carol L. Shea, Chief, Civil Division, for Tristram J. Coffin, United States Attorney for the District of Vermont, Burlington, VT, for appellee.

PRESENT: JOHN M. WALKER, JR., RICHARD C. WESLEY and PETER W. HALL, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Bryan William Husband appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Vermont (Sessions, /.), affirming the Commissioner’s decision to deny Husband’s applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, and denying Husband’s motion to reverse that decision. The panel has reviewed the briefs and the record in this appeal and agrees unanimously that oral argument is unnecessary because “the facts and legal arguments [have been] adequately presented in the briefs and record, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument.” Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2)(C). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

“When a district court has reviewed a determination of the Commissioner, we review the administrative record *de novo*to determine whether there is substantial evidence supporting the Commissioner’s decision and whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standard.” *Poupore v. Astrue,*566 F.3d 303, 305 (2d Cir.2009) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). “Substantial evidence means more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” *Burgess v. Astrue,*537 F.3d 117, 127 (2d Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Upon such review, we affirm the order of the district court for substantially the same reasons set forth in the magistrate judge’s thorough and well-reasoned report and recommendation dated August 5, 2011, which the district court adopted in its entirety.1*Husband v. Astrue,*No. 2:10-cv-228, 2011 WL 4068407, at *1 (D.Vt. Aug. 5, 2011), *adopted by*2011 WL 4074654, at *1 (D.Vt. Sept. 12, 2011).

We have considered all of Husband’s arguments on appeal and conclude that they are without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is hereby

AFFIRMED.

1

. Husband failed to raise his obesity argument in his objection to the report and recommendation, waiving further judicial review. *Cephas v. Nash,*328 F.3d 98, 107 (2d Cir. 2003). As this waiver does not appear to result in manifest injustice, *Krumme v. West-Point Stevens Inc.,*238 F.3d 133, 142 (2d Cir.2000), the panel elects not to exercise its discretion and evaluate the claim’s merits. *Caidor v. Onondaga Cnty.,*517 F.3d 601, 603 (2d Cir.2008).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          63,114
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      582
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        236
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                65,579
<PP&E>                                          32,877
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,814)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 164,591
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,134
<BONDS>                                          7,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,448
<OTHER-SE>                                      93,894
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   164,591
<SALES>                                         33,556
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                33,929
<CGS>                                           28,593
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   40,654
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (5,683)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    587
<INCOME-TAX>                                       986
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (399)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (399)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.08)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  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 Company.
 Dated: November 12, 2010
    /s/ Edward K. ChristianEdward K. ChristianChief Executive OfficerDated: November 12, 2010
    /s/ Samuel D. BushSamuel D. BushChief Financial Officer
Exhibit
      32.1








CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
§1350,


AS
      ADOPTED
      PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Universal Hospital Services, Inc. (the
      "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Gary D. Blackford,
      President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. §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 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.







/s/
      Gary D. Blackford


Gary
      D.
      Blackford


President
      and Chief Executive Officer


May
      8,
      2007




26
<PAGE>

Exhibit 11.1
                   VALENCE TECHNOLOGY, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                     (companies in the development stage)

                 STATEMENT OF CALCULATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                                  (Unaudited)
                   (in thousands, except per share amounts)
                                     -----
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                             Three Months Ended                  Nine Months Ended
                                                      --------------------------------     ------------------------------
                                                      December 29,        December 24,     December 29,      December 24,
                                                          1996                1995             1996              1995
                                                      ------------        ------------     ------------      ------------
<S>                                                  <C>                 <C>              <C>               <C>
Actual weighted average shares of common stock
  outstanding for the period                             21,673              20,134           21,672             20,160

Net loss for period                                     $(4,802)            $(2,152)        $(11,425)          $(13,973)

Net loss per share for period                           $ (0.22)            $ (0.11)        $  (0.53)          $  (0.69)

</TABLE>

Dilutive common stock warrants and stock options have not been included in 
the calculations of common and common equivalent shares to calculate net loss 
per share, as their inclusion would be antidilutive.


                                       13
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 13, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51261

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE GUERRERO BORREGO-MENDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:05-CR-867-ALL

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

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Jose Guerrero

Borrego-Mendez raises arguments that are foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998),

which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and

not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for

summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER****Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**     The undersigned executive officer of Anchor BanCorp Wisconsin Inc. (the “Registrant”)hereby certifies that the Registrant’s Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2006fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 andthat the information contained therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Registrant.       /s/ Douglas J. Timmerman Douglas J. Timmerman, Chairman of the Board,    President and Chief Executive Officer  November 8, 2006**Note:**A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Anchor BanCorp Wisconsin Inc. and will be retainedby Anchor BanCorp Wisconsin Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.
45
EX-32.1

                   CHEFS INTERNATIONAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

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

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

         I, ANTHONY C. PAPALIA,  PRINCIPAL  EXECUTIVE  AND  PRINCIPAL  FINANCIAL
OFFICER  OF CHEFS  INTERNATIONAL,  INC.  (THE  "COMPANY"),  DO  HEREBY  CERTIFY,
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.  SECTION 1350,  AS ADOPTED  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, THAT:

     (a)   the Annual  Report on Form  10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year
           ended  January 25,  2004 which this  certification  accompanies  (the
           "Periodic  Report"),  fully complies with the requirements of Section
           13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (b)   to  the  best  of my  knowledge,  the  information  contained  in the
           Periodic  Report  fairly  presents,  in all  material  respects,  the
           financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Dated:     April 22, 2004

                                                  /s/ Anthony C. Papalia
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Anthony C. Papalia
                                                  Principal Executive and
                                                  Principal Financial Officer
                                                  Chefs International, Inc.
#### In the Matter of Oliver Richardson, Petitioner, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of New York State Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[852 NYS2d 921]

Present-Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Smith, Centra and Pine, JJ.
No. 1084.

#### Gatewood *v.*Sanders et al.

May 20, 1946.

*Leon T. Seawell*for petitioner.

*George M. Lanning*for respondents.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22
- 7088

JUSTIN HILLERBY , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. KENNETH NELSON, Warden , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Greenville

. Donald C. Coggins, Jr. , District Judge. ( 6:21

- cv - 03450

- DCC )

Submitted : May 18, 2023 Decided: May 22, 2023

Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. William Glenn Yarborough, III, WILLIAM G. YARBOROUGH III, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC , Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Melody Jane Brown, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Ju lianna Battenfield, Assistant Attorney General , OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA , Columbia , South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7088 Doc: 14 Filed: 05/22/2023 Pg: 1 of 32 PER CURIAM: Justin Hillerby seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Hillerby that fai lure 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. Martin v

. Duffy , 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 846

- 47 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140 , 154

- 55 (1985). Although Hillerby received proper notice and filed timely objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendatio n, he has waived appellate review because the objections were not specific to the particularized legal recommendations made by the magistrate judge. See Martin , 858 F.3d at 245 (holding that, “to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge’s report , 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” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Specifically, Hillerby failed to subst antively challenge the magistrate judge’s determination that Hillerby was not entitled to § 2254 relief based on the state appeals
court ’s application of relevant federal law in affirming the denial of state postconviction relief. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7088 Doc: 14 Filed: 05/22/2023 Pg: 2 of 33 Accordingly, we deny a ce rtificate 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 USCA4 Appeal: 22-7088 Doc: 14 Filed: 05/22/2023 Pg: 3 of 3