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

EXHIBIT 10.35




February 24, 2022


Re:      Internal Offer Letter


Dear Julie:


AppHarvest Operations, Inc. (the “Company”) is pleased to offer you the position of Chief Operating Officer on the following terms.


You will report to David Lee, President. You will be based in Lexington, Kentucky. Of course, the Company may change your position, duties, and work location from time to time in its discretion.  


Your annual base salary will be $350,000 ($13,461.54 bi-weekly) and subject to board approval, less payroll deductions and withholdings, paid on the Company’s normal payroll schedule. You will be eligible for the Annual Incentive Plan and your target percentage is 60%.  Your current Benefit Plan will continue through your new role.


Subject to approval by Board of Directors of AppHarvest, Inc., we anticipate you will be granted an option to purchase 150,000 shares of AppHarvest common stock at an exercise price per share equal to the closing price of the AppHarvest’s common stock on the Nasdaq Stock Market on the date of grant (the “Option”).  The anticipated Option will be governed by the terms and conditions of the AppHarvest, Inc. 2021 Equity Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) and your grant agreement, and will vest in four equal annual installments, with the first installment vesting on the first anniversary of the vesting commencement date and succeeding installments on each anniversary of the vesting commencement date thereafter (or if there is no corresponding day, on the last day of the month), subject to your Continuous Service (as defined in the Plan) as of each such date.  


Your employment with the Company will be “at-will.”  You may terminate your employment with the Company at any time and for any reason whatsoever simply by notifying the Company. Likewise, the Company may terminate your employment at any time, with or without cause or advance notice.  Your employment at-will status can only be modified in a written agreement signed by you and by an officer of the Company.


Please sign and date this letter if you wish to accept employment at the Company under the terms described above. If you accept our offer, we will make the effective start date February 27, 2022.


We look forward to your favorable reply and to a productive and enjoyable work relationship.


Sincerely,


															
	/s/ Jonathan Webb, CEO				
	Jonathan Webb				
	Understood and Accepted:				
					
	/s/ Julie Nelson				
	Name				
	02/25/2022				
	Date
#### STATE v. CAUTHEN

No. 149 PC.

Case below: 18 N.C. App. 591.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 31 August 1973.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF FINANCIAL REPORTS

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

** **

I, Maurice S. Nelson, Jr.,certify that:

 

1.             Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of EARLE M. JORGENSEN COMPANY(“EMJ”);

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of EMJ as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.             EMJ’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for EMJ and have:

 

(a)                                  Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

(b)                                 Evaluated the effectiveness of EMJ’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(c)                                  Disclosed in this report any changes inEMJ’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during EMJ’s mostrecent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, EMJ’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.                  EMJ’s other certifying officer and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to EMJ’s auditors and the audit committee of EMJ’s boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a)                                  All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect EMJ’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)                                 Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in EMJ’sinternal control over financial reporting.

 

 

Date: August 1, 2003

 

 
| /s/ Maurice S. Nelson, Jr.                                                             |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Maurice S. Nelson, Jr.  President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Operating Officer |

 

1

----
### The Honorable James Maxwell Moody, United States Distric t 1 

### Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT



# ________ No. 96-3730

___________ Mary V. Meckel, * * Appellant, * * v. * * University of Arkansas, at * Monticello, * * Appeal from the United States Appellees, * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Jack Lassiter, Executive * Vice Chancellor, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees, * * John N. Short, Chairman, * Division of Social Sciences * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: May 2, 1997 Filed: May 20, 1997

___________ Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
Mary V. Meckel appeals from the final order entered in the District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas denying her Fed. R. Civ. P
.

1 60(b)(2) motion for relief from judgment. The

### -2-

distri ct court found that Meckel's proffered expert testimony did no t consti tute newly discovered evidence which could not have been timel y discovered by due dil igence. We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See Mitchell v. Shalala , 48 F.3d 1039, 1041 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review; movant must show due diligence, among other things). Accordingly, we affirm.
A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 99-4463

MARGARET M. ADKINS,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley.

Robert C. Chambers, District Judge.

(CR-98-194)

Submitted: January 6, 2000

Decided: February 4, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Wayne D. Inge, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Rebecca A. Betts,

United States Attorney, Karen L. Bleattler, Assistant United States

Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Margaret M. Adkins appeals her conviction for being a convicted

felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)

(1994). On appeal, Adkins contends that the evidence adduced at trial

was not sufficient to support her conviction and that the district court

violated Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) by allowing certain testimony regarding

her actions and demeanor on the evening of her offense. We have

reviewed the evidence of record and find that it amply supports

Adkins' conviction. See United States v. Hoyte , 51 F.3d 1239, 1245

(4th Cir. 1995); United States v. Brewer, 1 F.3d 1430, 1437 (4th Cir.

1993). Adkins' contentions amount to little more than an invitation to

this court to revisit the credibility of the Government's witnesses, a

course of action we routinely decline. See United States v. Murphy,

35 F.3d 143, 148 (4th Cir. 1994). Neither can we discern any error

stemming from the district court's failure to exclude testimony

describing Adkins' actions and appearance on the evening in question. United States v. Powers, 59 F.3d 1460, 1464-65 (4th Cir. 1995).

Finding no merit to either of Adkins' contentions on appeal, we

affirm the conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

 2
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5659 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5659

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the payment 
       of recovery rebates on the basis of tax returns for 2007 
notwithstanding the limitation on timing of payments where necessary to 
                     correct a manifest injustice.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              July 1, 2010

Ms. Pingree of Maine introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the payment 
       of recovery rebates on the basis of tax returns for 2007 
notwithstanding the limitation on timing of payments where necessary to 
                     correct a manifest injustice.

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

SECTION 1. PAYMENT OF RECOVERY REBATES BASED ON 2007 RETURNS 
              NOTWITHSTANDING LIMITATION ON TIMING OF PAYMENTS TO 
              CORRECT MANIFEST INJUSTICE.

    Paragraph (3) of section 6428(g) of the Internal Revenue Code of 
1986 is amended by striking ``2008.'' and inserting ``2008, unless the 
Secretary determines paying such refund or credit is necessary to 
correct a manifest injustice.''.
                                 <all>
```
# L_2007037EN.01000901.xml

| 9.2.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 37/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 37/9

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 123/2007

of 8 February 2007

concerning tenders notified in response to the invitation to tender for the export of common wheat issued in Regulation (EC) No 936/2006

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 of 29 September 2003 on the common organisation of the market in cereals (1), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of common wheat to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 936/2006 (2). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of common wheat to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 936/2006 (2).

| (2) | Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

| (3) | On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed.

| (4) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals, |
| --- | --- |

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders notified from 2 to 8 February 2007 in response to the invitation to tender for the refund for the export of common wheat issued in Regulation (EC) No 936/2006.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 9 February 2007.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 8 February 2007.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 78. Regulation as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1154/2005 (OJ L 187, 19.7.2005, p. 11).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 172, 24.6.2006, p. 6.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7. Regulation as last modified by Regulation (EC) No 777/2004 (OJ L 123, 27.4.2004, p. 50).

3

---
July 1, 1998


JACO ELECTRONICS, INC.
145 Oser Avenue
Hauppauge, NY  11788

NEXUS CUSTOM ELECTRONICS, INC.
Prospect Street
Brandon, VT  05733

Gentleman:

         Reference is made to the Second  Restated and Amended Loan and Security
Agreement between Jaco Electronics,  Inc. and Nexus Custom Electronics,  Inc. as
Debtor,  and BNY Financial  Corporation  (f./k/a The Bank of New York Commercial
Corporation),  as Lender, and each other Lender a party hereto,  dated September
13, 1995, as amended and supplemented (the "Loan Agreement").

         It is hereby  agreed  that,  effective  as of July 1,  1998,  the first
sentence of Paragraph  5(A) of the Loan  Agreement  shall be amended by deleting
the word "Until" at the beginning  thereof and  substituting the words "Upon the
request of the Agent on behalf of the  Secured  Parties  and until" in its place
and stead.

         Except as hereinabove  specifically set forth, the Loan Agreement shall
remain unmodified and in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.

         If you are in  agreement  with the  foregoing,  please so  indicate  by
signing and returning to us the enclosed copy of this letter.


                                        Very truly yours,

                                        BNY FINANCIAL CORPORATION f/k/a THE
                                        BANK OF NEW YORK COMMERCIAL CORPORATION,
                                        as Agent and Lender

                                        By: Frank Imperato 
                                        Title: Vice President

                                        FLEET BANK, N.A.,
                                        NATWEST BANK N.A., as Lender

                                        By: Alice Adleberg
                                        Title: Vice President




AGREED:

JACO ELECTRONICS, INC.

By: Jeffrey D. Gash                       
     Title:  Vice President/Finance

NEXUS CUSTOM ELECTRONICS, INC.

By: Jeffrey D. Gash                       
     Title:  Vice President/Finance
#### James W. Reid *vs.*John Stevens.

Suffolk.

March 7.

April 5, 1876.

Colt & Lord, JJ., absent.

An allegation that the “ defendant made a contract in writing ” is not supported by-evidence of a contract not signed by the defendant, and the objection of variance is open to the defendant, although he does not set up the statute of frauds in hie answer.

Contract for services rendered by the plaintiff to the defendant. The declaration alleged that the defendant made with the plaintiff “a certain contract in writing.”- Answer, a general denial.

At the trial -in the Superior Court, before Bacon, J., the plaintiff put in evidence, to prove the contract declared upon, a diary produced by the defendant on notice, in which was written in the defendant’s handwriting, under date of February 17, 1872, “ Made a bargain with James W. Reid to work in office as student for two years from the first day of February, 1872, to Feb ruary 1, 1874, on the following terms, viz.: first three months without any pay whatever; next three months, five dollars a week; next three months, six dollars a week; and the next three months, eight dollars a week; and for the first three months in the second year, nine dollars and fifty cents a week; next three, eleven dollars a week; next three months, twelve dollars and fifty cents a week; and the last and eighth three months, fourteen dollars a week, payable once a week, at the above rates, until otherwise agreed upon. The above terms I fully agree to. J. W. Reid.”

The signature of the defendant was not attached to the writing, and his name nowhere appeared in the book containing it. *210It was in evidence that the plaintiff worked until December 31* 1873, and did no work from that time until the end of his contract. There was conflicting evidence as to whether the plaintiff voluntarily terminated his employment on December 31, 1873, or by reason of the defendant’s refusal to continue the same. The plaintiff claimed payment for the full time of the contract. The defendant offered him judgment for services rendered to December 31, 1873.

At the close of the evidence, the defendant asked the judge to rule that the plaintiff could not recover upon this declaration, he having alleged a contract within the statute of frauds, and the evidence not supporting his allegation of a contract in writing by the defendant; but the court ruled that this objection was not open to the defendant, under the answer.

The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, for the full amount claimed by him ; and the defendant alleged exceptions.

*F. S.*Eesseltine, for the defendant.

*M. A.*Blaisdell, for the plaintiff.

Gray, C. J.

The allegation in the declaration, that the defendant made a contract in writing, was denied in the answer, and was not supported by evidence of a contract not signed by the defendant. The objection of variance was open to the defendant, although he had not set up the statute of frauds. The case is thus distinguished from *Middlesex Co.*v. Osgood, 4 Gray, 447. *Exceptions sustained.*
EXHIBIT 24.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

      We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
Nos. 33-34590, 33-75338 and 333-19027 of DI Industries, Inc. on Form S-8 and
Registration Statements Nos. 333-14783, 333-6077 and 333-2043 of DI Industries,
Inc. on Form S-3, of our report dated March 14, 1997, relating to the
consolidated balance sheet of DI Industries, Inc. and Subsidiaries as of
December 31, 1996 and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes
in shareholders' equity and cash flows for the year then ended, and the related
financial statement schedule, which report appears in the December 31, 1996
annual report on Form 10-K of DI Industries, Inc.

KPMG Peat Marwick LLP

Houston, Texas
March 25, 1997
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6496

KENNETH GREEN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

UNKNOWN SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS OFFICIALS; SOUTH CAROLINA

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DIVISION,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

CLERK OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-02-4112-9-20BG)

Submitted: July 24, 2003 Decided: July 30, 2003

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Green, Appellant Pro Se. Ruskin C. Foster, MCCUTCHEN,

BLANTON, JOHNSON & BARNETTE, L.L.P., Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Green seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting a magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismissing

without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as to some claims.

The court ordered that Green’s suit continue as to remaining

claims. This Court may exercise jurisdiction only over final

orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and

collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b);

Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949).

Because it does not dispose of all of his § 1983 claims, the order

Green seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable

interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
U.S. Department of Labor Employment Standards Administration 

 Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs

 Division of Longshore and 

 Harbor Workers’ Compensation 

 Washington, D.C. 20210

قسم لونغشور وهاربور لتعويضات الموظفين

الأسئلة المتكررة

مكتب المقاطعة رقم 2 – لونغشور

مدير المنطقة

(روبيلوتي ريتشارد (Richard V. Robilotti

هاتف: 264-3010 (646)

فاآس264-3002: (646)

مدققي الطلبات المعاملات المنتهية بالارقام أرقام الهواتف

Strow Lynn) لين سترو) 25 - 01 264-3012 (646)

 Abeijon David) ديفيد ابي جون – متحدث بالاسبانية) 50 – 26 264-3014 (646)

Sweeney .M Dennis) دنيس ام سويني) 75 - 51 264-3137 (646)

Kucenski Ron) رون آوشنسكي) 00 - 76 264-3013 (646)

مساعدين قسم تعويضات الموظفين

Quezada Joselito) هوسيليتو آويزادا) 264-3015 (646)

Slater .R Frank) فرانك ار سلاتر) 264-3016 (646)

سكرتير الطلبات

Doucette Maria) ماريا دوسيت) 264-3017 (646)

العنوان البريدي

OWCP/Longshore 

Post Office Box 249 

New York, NY 10014-0249 

عنوان الشارع

OWCP/Longshore 

201 Varick Street, 7th Fl. Rm. 740

New York, NY 10014 

قسم لونغشور وهاربور لتعويضات الموظفين

الأسئلة المتكررة

مكتب المقاطعة رقم 2 – لونغشور