alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                Exhibit 10.3

                               AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO
                              EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
                              --------------------



     This Amendment No. 2 (this "Amendment") is made and entered into as of the
1st day of January, 1997 by and between First Enterprise Financial Group, Inc.,
an Illinois corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Company") and Kenneth
L. Stucky (hereinafter referred to as "Employee").

     WHEREAS, the parties previously entered into an Employment Agreement dated
as of December 31, 1994, as amended by Amendment No. 1 to Employment Agreement
dated as of December 31, 1994 (the "Agreement");

     WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement as hereinafter set
forth.

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein,
and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

     1. Paragraph 4(b) of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its
entirety as follows:

      "an annual incentive compensation award in an amount equal to

      one-half percent (1/2%) of the consolidated pretax net income of

      the Company ("Annual Incentive Compensation Award").  The Annual

      Incentive Compensation Award shall be: (i) computed without regard

      to Employee's annual incentive compensation payable hereunder and

      without regard to any annual incentive compensation payable to

      each other employee of the Company who receives a percentage of

      the consolidated pretax net income of the Company pursuant to an

      individual employment contract, (ii) determined by the firm of

      independent accountants then in the employ of the 

<PAGE>   2

      Company; and (iii) paid within thirty (30) days after the determination 

      of such Annual Incentive Compensation Award;"

     2. The Agreement as amended hereby is ratified, approved and confirmed in
all respects.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment No. 2
the day and year first above written.

                                           FIRST ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL GROUP,
                                           INC., an Illinois corporation


                                           By:
                                              -------------------------------
                                           Its:
                                               ------------------------------





                                           ----------------------------------
                                           Kenneth L. Stucky
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6383 

To prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security from implementing or 

enforcing a remain in Texas policy. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 13, 2023 

Mr. JACKSON of Texas (for himself, Mr. PFLUGER, Mr. ELLZEY, Mr. BABIN, 

Mr. FALLON, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. LUTTRELL, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. WEBER

of Texas, Ms. VAN DUYNE, Mr. ARRINGTON, Mr. GOODEN of Texas, Mr. 

NEHLS, Mr. SELF, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. 

MCCAUL, Mr. WILLIAMS of Texas, Mr. MORAN, Ms. GRANGER, Mr. TONY

GONZALES of Texas, Mr. ROY, Mr. BIGGS, Mr. CLOUD, Mr. CARTER of 

Texas, Ms. DE LA CRUZ, Mr. HUNT, and Mr. GUEST) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To prohibit the Secretary of Homeland Security from 

implementing or enforcing a remain in Texas policy. 

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


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6383 IH

1 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON SECRETARY OF HOMELAND 

2 SECURITY FROM IMPLEMENTING OR EN3 FORCING A REMAIN IN TEXAS POLICY. 

4 (a) PROHIBITION.—No Federal funds may be used 

5 by the Secretary of Homeland Security to implement or 

6 enforce a remain in Texas policy. 

7 (b) REMAIN IN TEXAS POLICY DEFINED.—In this 

8 section, the term ‘‘remain in Texas policy’’ means a policy 

9 that requires any alien to remain in the State of Texas 

10 after such alien is released or paroled by the Secretary 

11 of Homeland Security or the Secretary of Health and 

12 Human Services into the United States. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### John B. Petterson et al., Respondents, *v.*Radspi Realty & Coal Corp., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Argued January 12, 1943;

decided March 4, 1943.

*647
      *Irving Ginsberg*for appellant.

*Michael H. Grae*and *Jesse D. Berman*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ. Lehman, Ch. J., dissents on the ground that the evidence does not sustain a finding that there was a complete failure of consideration.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
      This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from
financial statements for the twelve month period ended December 31, 1999 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                        1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                      JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                        DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                                    3,182
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                          3,182
<PP&E>                                                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                            3,182
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    27,000
<BONDS>                                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                  3,110
<OTHER-SE>                                              (26,928)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              3,182
<SALES>                                                  15,918
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         15,918
<CGS>                                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            41,526
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                         (25,608)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                     (25,608)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                            (25,608)
<EPS-BASIC>                                                (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              (.01)



</TABLE>
SERVED: JUNE 18, 2012 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

·IN THE MATTER OF 

M & R HELICOPTERS, LLC 

FAA DOCKET No. CPIOS00011 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS No. FAA-2010-1211 

ORDER CORRECTING TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING 

The following corrections are hereby made in the transcript of the hearing held 

January 26 and 27, 2012: 

PAGE LINE READS SHOULD READ 

108 2 employee employer 

114 16 wholePRM NRPM 

150 17 21.53(b) 2150.3B 

164 18 Q. A. 

304 2 21.53(b) 2150.3B 

- ··~ ·:.-· 
2 

SO ORDERED. 

Attachment - Service List 
REVISED SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration· 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

·Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

Michael Selig, MD, FACC, CFI-H, 

Respondent's Representative 

2816 Orefield Road 

Allentown, P A 18104 

TEL: 610-360-3953 

FAX: 

ONE COPY 

Charles Raley, Complainant's Counsel 

Attorney, Enforcement Division/ AGC-300 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

TEL: 202-267-3357 

FAX: 202-267-5106 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 ·~ 

U.S. Department ofTransportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: Attorney-Advisor 202-366-2139 

Legal Assistant 202-366-5121 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FAA Docket No. CP10S00011 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 SeiVice was by U.S. Mail. For seJ.Vice in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilb1,1r Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. · ·.; .. ·
AFS-11-288-E June 28, 2011

Exemption No. 6853E Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2000-8153

Mr. William Cavitt

Vice President

American Airlines

P.O. Box 582809 Tulsa, OK 74159

Dear Mr. Cavitt:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption No. 6853, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated April 25, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Adm inistration (FAA) on behalf of American Airlines, Inc. (American) for an extension of Exemption No. 6853, as amended. That exemption from § 121.317(a) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows American to operate its Boeing 737 and 777 aircra ft with “No Smoking” signs that are always

illuminated.

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to American.

Our Decision

The FAA has determ ined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 6853, as amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest.2

Therefore, under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I grant your petition.

Although American requests a permanent exemption, the FAA finds that exemptions need to be evaluated periodically.

The Effect of Our Decision

Our decision extends the term ination date of Exemption No. 6853, as amended, to August 31, 2013 unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

John W. McGraw Acting Director, Flight Standards

Service
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ian M. BOWENS, a.k.a. New Man, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-10228 Non-Argument Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

(March 17, 2017)

Lindsay Feinberg, Michael J. Moore, U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Macon, GA, Leah E. McEwen, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Albany, GA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee

Barry Debrow, Jr., Federal Public Defender’s Office, Columbus, GA, Christina Lee Hunt, Martin J. Vogelbaum, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Macon, GA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Jonathan Dodson, appointed counsel for Ian Bowens in this direct criminal appeal, *815has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel 1⁄8 motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Bowens’s convictions and sentences are AFFIRMED.
1 O n O c to b e r 1 6 , 2 0 0 8 , th i s C o u rt i s s u e d a m e m o ra n d u m o p i n i o n d i s m i s s i n g th i s a p p e a l
. See

G o re n a v . B la c k w e ll , N o. 13- 08- 00323 - C V, 200 8 T ex. App. LE X I S 7893 ( T ex. App. –C or pus Chr i st i O ct . 16, 2008, no pet . )
. O n Febr uar y9, 200 9, t hi s C our t i ssued an o r dergr ant i ng a ppel l ant ’ s m ot i on forr ehear i ng a nd wi t hdr awi ng o urpr ev i ous o pi ni on a nd j udgm enti ssued i n t hi s cause . T he a ppeal r em ai ns pe ndi ng b ef or e t he C o u rt. 

### NU MBE R 13- 08- 0032 3-C V



## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E XAS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ DELI A GORENA , APP ELLA NT, v . BETRES SA BLA CKW ELL AND JE SS IC A LY N N B LA C KM AN , AP PE LL EE S.

____ ____ _ _ _ _ _ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ On A pp ea l from th e 36 th D i str i ct C ou rt of S an P at ri ci o C ou nty , T exas .

____ ______ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B ef or e Just i ces Yanez, G ar za, and V el a M em or andu m O pi ni on P erC ur i am Appel lan t, Del ia Gorena, per fected an appeal from a jud g ment rendered ag ain st her in fav or of appell ee, B etress a Bl ackwell and Jes si ca Ly nn Bl ack man. On M ay 20, 2009, 12

the C ler k o f thisC our

t not ified appel lan t t hat t h e cler k' s record i n the above c ause was or ig ina ll y due on J une 5, 2008, and that the deputy cl er k, Er nest ina R obl ez , had noti fied thi s C o u rtt h a ta p p e l l a n tfa i l e d t o m a k e a r ra n g e me n t s fo r p a y me n to f t h e c l e r k ' s record. The Cl er k o f thisC our t not ified appel lan t of thi s d efect s o tha t s tepsco uld be t aken to cor re ct the defect, if it coul d be done. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 3 7.3, 42.3( b) ,( c)
. Appel lan t was advised tha t, if

t he defect was notco rrected w ithin ten d ays f rom the d ate o f receipt of

this noti ce, the appeal woul d be dis mis sed for want o f pros ecut ion
. A p p e llant ha s failed to respon d to th is Court’s notice. Accordingly , the app eal is DI SM ISSE D FO R W AN T OF PR OSEC UTIO N. SeeT EX . R. A PP . P. 4 2.3( b) , ( c)
. PERC UR IAM Me moran dum Opi nio n del ivered and fil ed th isthe 2nd d ay of Jul y , 200 9.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Tina Wynette EASLEY, also known as Tina Wynette Fields, also known as Big Tina, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11434 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 4, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Tina Wynette Easley, Pro Se

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Tina Wynette Easley has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Easley has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 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.
James E. HENDERSON, Jr., Appellant, v. NORTH BROWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT d/b/a Broward Health Medical Center, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3456

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[May 31, 2018]

James E. Henderson, Jr., Fort Lauderdale, pro se.

William V. Carcioppolo and Shari D. Smith of La Cava & Jacobson, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Gerber, C.J., Gross and Conner, JJ., concur.
Gernard CHESTNUT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-5064

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

Certifications Pursuant to Section 302of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

I, John C. Dong, certifythat:

 

1. I have reviewed thisreport on Form 10-Q of Watchit Media, Inc.;

 

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

 

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

 

4. The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a) Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others with those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusion about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and

 

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

 

5. The registrant’s othercertifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors andthe audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors:

 

a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

b) Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: May 22, 2006

 

 
|   | /s/ John C. Dong                                       |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | John C. Dong                                           |
|   | Executive Vice  President and Chief  Financial Officer |

 

1

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM WATERMARC FOOD MANAGEMENT CO. FORM 10-Q FOR THE 1ST QUARTER OF FISCAL 1999
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-27-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-27-1998
<CASH>                                          48,560
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  244,674
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    327,018
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               879,084
<PP&E>                                       6,011,200
<DEPRECIATION>                                 481,431
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,454,047
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,576,884
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    329,540
<COMMON>                                     1,189,155
<OTHER-SE>                                 (8,077,632)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,454,046
<SALES>                                      9,120,877
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,120,877
<CGS>                                        2,882,842
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,926,866
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,044,024
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             156,370
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (914,503)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (914,503)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)
        

</TABLE>
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D2023-0858

_____________________________

PERCY LESTER HALL,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Coleman Lee Robinson, Judge.

February 29, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. 

LEWIS, BILBREY, and LONG, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Joel Arnold, Assistant 

Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Kevin HOWARD, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-11738 Conference Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 24, 2017

James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Texas, Dallas, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Kevin Howard, Pro Se

Before KING, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Kevin Howard has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (6th Cir. 2011). Howard has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cíe. R. 42.2.

*

 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.