alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) by and between Computer Sciences Corporation, a Nevada corporation
(the “Company”), and J. Michael Lawrie (the “Executive” and, together with the Company, the “Parties”), shall be effective as of March 27, 2017 (as defined below) (the “Amendment
Effective Date”). 
 WHEREAS, the Company and Executive entered into that certain Employment Agreement (the “Employment
Agreement”) dated as of February 7, 2012, as amended; 
 WHEREAS, the Term of Employment, as defined in the Employment
Agreement, was previously extended by agreement between the Parties for a period of one (1) year on the same terms and conditions as set forth in the Employment Agreement; 

WHEREAS, the Parties now wish to amend the Employment Agreement to extend the Employment Agreement for an additional one-year period; 
 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company has approved the amendment of the
Employment Agreement in the manner reflected herein. 
 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and mutual covenants and conditions
herein, the Parties, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows, effective as of the Amendment Effective Date: 
 1. As of the
Amendment Effective Date, the Term of Employment shall be extended through the earliest to occur of (i) March 31, 2019 or (ii) the date of termination of Executive’s employment in accordance with any one of Sections 5(a) through
5(f) of the Employment Agreement; provided, however, that the Term of Employment is subject to annual Amendment upon mutual agreement of the Parties not later than six (6) months prior to the end of the Company’s fiscal
year 2019 or any extended annual period. 
 2. Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment shall have the meanings given to
them in the Employment Agreement. This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts each of which shall be legally binding and enforceable. 







 3. All terms and provisions of the Employment Agreement not amended hereby, either expressly or
by necessary implication, shall remain in full force and effect. From and after the date of this Amendment, all references to the term “Agreement” in the Employment Agreement shall include the terms contained in this Amendment. 

[Signature Page Follows] 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Amendment to Employment Agreement
effective as of the Amendment Effective Date. 
  

					
	Executive:	 		 	For the Company:
			
	 /s/ J. Michael Lawrie
	 		 	 By: /s/ William Deckelman

	Signature	 		 	 Name:  William Deckelman

		 		 	 Title:    EVP – General Counsel

	 J. Michael Lawrie
	 		 	
	Printed Name	 		 	
			
	 March 28, 2017
	 		 	
	Date
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 28 (Friday, February 9, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 9130]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02622]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

COMMISSION OF FINE ARTS


Notice of Meeting

    Per 45 CFR 2102.3, the next meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine 
Arts is scheduled for February 15, 2024, at 9 a.m. and will be held via 
online videoconference. Items of discussion may include buildings, 
infrastructure, parks, memorials, and public art.
    Draft agendas, the link to register for the online public meeting, 
and additional information regarding the Commission are available on 
our website: www.cfa.gov. Inquiries regarding the agenda, as well as 
any public testimony, should be addressed to Thomas Luebke, Secretary, 
U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, at the above address; by emailing 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#95f6f3f4e6e1f4f3f3d5f6f3f4bbf2fae3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="214247405255404747614247400f464e57">[email protected]</span></a>; or by calling 202-504-2200. Individuals requiring 
sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired should contact 
the Secretary at least 10 days before the meeting date.

    Dated: February 5, 2024, in Washington, DC.
Susan M. Raposa,
Technical Information Specialist.
[FR Doc. 2024-02622 Filed 2-8-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6330-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                          55,842
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,256
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     19,007
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               126,494
<PP&E>                                       2,218,373
<DEPRECIATION>                                 509,659
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,508,954
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          138,488
<BONDS>                                        979,674
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           18,530
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,880
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,201,890
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,508,954
<SALES>                                      1,029,681
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,029,681
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  829,767
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                22,782
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              39,207
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                137,925
<INCOME-TAX>                                    52,331
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             85,594
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    85,594
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .83
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .81
        

</TABLE>
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ HARRY J. JOHNSON, Claimant

- Appellant,

v.
ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs , Respondent

- Appellee.

______________________

2013

- 7091

______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 12

- 1164, Chief Judge Bruce E. Kasold.

______________________
JUDGMENT

______________________
Z ACHARY M. S TOLZ , Chisholm Chisholm & Kilpatrick, L td
., of Providence, Rhode Island, argued for claimant

– appellant. With him on the brief w as T HOMAS R. B ENDER

. Of counsel on the brief was C HRISTOPHER J. C LAY , Dis abled American Veterans, of Cold Spring, Kentucky. Of counsel was R OBERT V. C HISHOLM , Chisholm Chisholm & Kilpatrick, ltd., of Providence, Rhode, Island.

M ICHAEL P. G OODMAN , Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States D epar t-ment of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respon dent

- appellee. With him on the brief were S TUART F. D ELERY , Assistant Attorney General, B RYANT G. S NEE , Acting Director, and S COTT D. A USTIN , Assistant Director. Of counsel on the brief were D AVID J. B ARRANS , Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and C HRISTINA L. G REGG , Attorney, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC. Of counsel was L ARA E ILHARDT , Attorney.

______________________
T HIS C AUSE having been heard and considered , it is

O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (R ADER , Chief Judge, B RYSON , and H UGHES , Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED

. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

March 13, 2014 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Date Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk of Court
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. 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 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 6, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-50420 Conference Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee
v. ARMANDO HERRERA-MUNOZ Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:06-CR-1926-ALL Before DeMOSS, DENNIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Armando Herrera-Munoz raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torresv. 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. See United States v. Pineda-Arrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007). The Government's motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and thejudgment ofthe district court is AFFIRMED.
#### Alfred Don RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 37920.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 31, 1965.

Rehearing Denied June 9, 1965.

Teague & Carlisle, by Marvin O. Teague, Houston, for appellant.

Frank Briscoe, Dist. Atty., Carl E. F. Dally, W. Louis White and Joe C. Shaffer,

Asst. Dist. Attys., Houston, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The offense is robbery; the punishment, enhanced under Art. 63 P.C., life.

Conviction at a former trial was reversed. See Richardson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 379 S.W.2d 913.

The state’s evidence was to the effect that appellant entered the unopened relocated cafe of the complainant and by assault robbed the owner of two wallets or billfolds and two or three dollars in money.

Appellant, an ex-convict who was arrested the following day, testified and offered evidence to the effect that he was at another and different place and did not and could not have committed the offense.

In submitting appellant’s defense of alibi the court charged the jury:

> “Now, if the evidence raises in your minds a reasonable doubt as to the presence of the defendant at the place where the offense was committed at the time of the commission thereof, you will find him ‘not guilty’.”

Appellant’s attack upon this instruction as constituting a comment by the court that the offense of robbery was committed is supported by Supina v. State, 115 Tex.Cr.R. 56, 27 S.W.2d 198, which he cites and relies upon, and which requires reversal.

The state does not contend and, under the record, we are in no position to hold that there was no issue as to whether or not the offense of robbery had been committed — as was the situation in Johns v. State, 129 Tex.Cr.R. 206, 86 S.W.2d 235.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

# AGENCY:

National Science Foundation.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Division of Acquisition and Cooperative Support within the National Science Foundation (NSF) is publishing this notice to advise the public of the availability of its Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 Service Contracts Inventory Analysis Report.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Raymond McCollum, Policy Branch Chief, Division of Acquisition and Cooperative Support, National Science Foundation. Phone: 703-292-4225; email:                         *rmccollu@nsf.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

NSF's FY 2023 Service Contract Inventory Analysis Report is included as part of a governmentwide service contract inventory. The inventory includes covered service contracts that were awarded in FY 2023. The NSF analyzes this data for the purpose of determining whether its contract labor is being used in an effective and appropriate manner and if the mix of federal employees and contractors in the agency is effectively balanced. The report does not include contractor proprietary or sensitive information.

                    The FY 2023 Service Contract Inventory Analysis Report is provided at the following link:                     *https://www.nsf.gov/​bfa/​dcca/​contracts/​index.jsp.*

*Authority:*42 U.S.C. 1861,                     *et seq.*

Dated: February 2, 2024.

Raymond L. McCollum,

Policy Branch Chief, National Science Foundation.

[FR Doc. 2024-02656 Filed 2-8-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
EX-10.1


 Exhibit 10.1 

Actua Corporation 

2017 Performance Plan 
 The
Board of Directors of Actua Corporation (together with its wholly-owned subsidiaries, “Actua”) hereby establishes this 2017 Performance Plan (this “Plan”). The principal purposes of this Plan are to: 

 

	 	(1)	advance the interests of Actua’s stockholders by providing certain officers and other employees with bonus payments and/or vesting of performance shares upon the achievement of specified corporate and individual
goals; and 

  

	 	(2)	help Actua attract and retain key employees. 

 The Compensation Committee of Actua’s Board of Directors
(the “Committee”) will administer and interpret this Plan. All decisions and determinations of the Committee with respect to this Plan will be final and binding on all parties. 

Actua’s 2017 goals include quantitative and qualitative goals. The relative weighting of each element of the Actua-specific goals is described below.

 Seventy percent (70%) of the target Achievement Percentage (as defined below) (the “Target Achievement Percentage”) is tied to the
accomplishment of quantitative goals, with: 
  

	 	(1)	twenty percent (20%) of the Target Achievement Percentage based on the achievement of a specified consolidated GAAP revenue goal; 


 

	 	(2)	twenty-five percent (25%) of the Target Achievement Percentage based on the achievement of a specified bookings goal; and 

  

	 	(3)	twenty-five percent (25%) of the Target Achievement Percentage based on the achievement of a specified consolidated, adjusted non-GAAP earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) goal.


 Thirty percent (30%) of the Target Achievement Percentage is tied to execution against the following qualitative goals: 

 

	 	(1)	execution of Board-approved strategic initiatives; 

  

	 	(2)	capital management; and 

  

	 	(3)	reaction to unforeseen market/business conditions. 

 Following the end of the 2017 year, the Committee
will evaluate Actua’s 2017 performance and determine the extent (expressed as a percentage) to which the corporate and individual goals, as applicable, were achieved (such percentage, the “Achievement Percentage”). The
Committee will then award bonuses and/or provide for the vesting of performance shares in accordance with each individual’s Achievement Percentage under the terms of this Plan.
**EXHIBIT 32**

**CERTIFICATION****(Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350)**

The undersigned hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge, **(i)** the foregoing Annual Report on Form 10-KSB filed by Yadkin Valley Company (the “Registrant”) for the year ended December 31, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the 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 Registrant.

| Date:   March 25, 2005 | /s/ David S. Perry                       |
|---------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|
|                                  |                                               |
|                                  | David S. Perry,   President and Treasurer     |
|                                  | (principal executive   and financial officer) |
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 02-2003

________________

Jamie N. Estes,

Appellant,

v.

Dean Joerling; Thomas Lasater,

also known as Thomas Lassiter,

also known as Thomas Lassater; St.

Louis County, Missouri; Suzanne

L. Hawkins; Mary Ann Hawkins,

Appellees.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the

Eastern District of Missouri.

[PUBLISHED]

________________

Submitted: November 4, 2002

 Filed: February 5, 2003

________________

Before HANSEN, Chief Judge, BEAM and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

________________

PER CURIAM.

After a fire destroyed Jamie N. Estes's home, she filed an insurance claim in

excess of $100,000. Police and insurance investigators concluded that the fire had

been set intentionally and that Estes's insurance claim was fraudulent. She was

charged in Missouri state court with second-degree arson and attempted stealing by

deceit. The trial court denied Estes's motions to suppress, found her guilty after a
1 The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

2

bench trial, suspended imposition of her sentence, and placed her on probation. In

federal court, Estes's insurance company secured a judgment declaring that her claim

was not covered by her insurance policy because her intentional or criminal acts

caused the fire and her claim misrepresented that certain personal property had been

destroyed in the fire. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Estes, 118 F. Supp. 2d 968 (E.D. Mo.

2000). We affirmed in an unpublished per curiam opinion. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Estes,

No. 00-3640 (8th Cir. June 15, 2001).

Estes then sued under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, alleging that defendants--

consisting of two police officers, St. Louis County, and two private citizens--had

framed her in violation of her constitutional rights. The district court1

 granted

defendants' motion for summary judgment. Estes appeals.

The district court articulated several reasons why defendants' summary

judgment motion should be granted. "We review the District Court's grant of

summary judgment de novo and may affirm on any basis supported by the record."

Wilson v. Spain, 209 F.3d 713, 716 (8th Cir. 2000). The district court correctly

concluded that collateral estoppel bars Estes's lawsuit. See Simmons v. O'Brien, 77

F.3d 1093, 1096 (8th Cir. 1996) (elements of collateral estoppel).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We deny appellees'

motions for damages and costs under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.
3

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 389 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 623
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 389

 For the relief of Nguyen Quy An and his daughter, Nguyen Ngoc Kim Quy.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

            February 10 (legislative day, January 30), 1995

Mr. Johnston (for himself, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Hatfield, Mr. Nickles, Mr. 
 Shelby, Mr. Specter, Mr. Dole, Mr. Brown, and Mr. Inouye) introduced 
the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 
                            on the Judiciary

                           September 19, 1996

                Reported by Mr. Hatch, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 For the relief of Nguyen Quy An and his daughter, Nguyen Ngoc Kim Quy.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Nguyen Quy An 
and his daughter, Nguyen Ngoc Kim Quy, shall be held and considered to 
have been lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent 
residence as of the date of the enactment of this Act upon payment of 
the required visa fees.

SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS.

    Upon the granting of permanent residence to Nguyen Quy An and his 
daughter, Nguyen Ngoc Kim Quy, as provided in this Act, the Secretary 
of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by two numbers 
during the current fiscal year the total number of immigrant visas 
available to natives of the country of the alien's birth under section 
203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)).
                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 623

104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                 S. 389

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 For the relief of Nguyen Quy An and his daughter, Nguyen Ngoc Kim Quy.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           September 19, 1996

                       Reported without amendment
```