alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.2






FORM OF FURMANITE CORPORATION

1994 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN




NOTICE AND AGREEMENT OF GRANT OF STOCK OPTIONS




(date)



(Participant)



Dear Participant:



Furmanite Corporation (the “Company”) hereby issues, grants and awards to you an option to
purchase (“the Option”) shares of the Company’s common stock (the “Common Stock”) on the terms
described below, pursuant to the Furmanite Corporation 1994 Stock Incentive Plan, as amended and
restated March 4, 2009 (the “Plan”), and as authorized by the Compensation Committee of the
Company’s Board of Directors. All terms referred to herein shall have the meaning as defined in
the Plan, which Plan is incorporated herein by reference.



	 	 	 
	Date of grant of Option

	 	date
	
 
	 	 
	Option price per share of Common Stock

	 	price
	
 
	 	 
	Number of shares of Common Stock

under Nonqualified Option

	 	

number of shares
	
 
	 	 






The above Nonqualified Option shares shall become vested at the rate of        option shares per year,
commencing        , however, all option shares that have not expired and are not vested
shall immediately vest upon your death, life-threatening disability or a Change of Control as
described in the Plan. All vested option shares shall expire on        unless earlier under
the terms of the Plan.



By signing below, you:




	 	i)	 	acknowledge your receipt of the Plan, the Company’s most recently filed Annual
Report on Form 10-K, the Company’s most recently filed Quarterly Report on Form10-Q and
the Company’s policy guidelines with respect to the purchase and sale of the Company’s
securities by employees; and,






	 	ii)	 	indicate your acceptance of the grant of the Option and agree to be bound by
the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Plan, as amended from time to time.






FURMANITE CORPORATION




By: Howard C. Wadsworth

Senior Vice President




Agreed and Accepted:      



     


Participant,      



Date:
* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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

March 7, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-50826

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN ANTONIO BLANCO-SALINAS, also known as Antonio 

Blanco-Salinas, also known as Antonio Salinas Blanco,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas 

USDC No. 3:06-CR-445-ALL

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

Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Juan Antonio

Blanco-Salinas 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 10.16

                                  AMENDMENT TO

                                OPTION AGREEMENT

                  THIS AMENDMENT TO OPTION AGREEMENT (this "Amendment") is made
and entered into effective as of the 1st day of December, 1999, by and between
RS INVESTMENTS/STONEBRIDGE, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company
("Seller"), and THE GENESEE COMPANY, a Colorado corporation ("Purchaser").

                                    Recitals

         A. Seller and Purchaser have heretofore entered into that certain
Option Agreement dated as of December 1, 1999 (the "Contract"), relating to the
purchase and sale of certain real property in the County of Jefferson, State of
Colorado, more particularly described therein (the "Property") which is
comprised of 83 residential lots.

         B. Initially capitalized terms used herein and defined in the Contract
shall have the definitions contained in the Contract, unless otherwise defined
herein.

         C. Seller and Purchaser now desire to amend the Contract to modify
certain terms and provisions of the Contract as set forth below.

                                    Amendment

         NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants and
agreements set forth herein, Seller and Purchaser hereby agree as follows:

         1. Termination. Seller and Purchaser agree that Seller shall have the
right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to terminate the Contract at any
time by delivery of written notice to Purchaser. Upon such termination, Seller
shall promptly return to Purchaser the Option Payment, to the extent not
previously applied at a Closing.

         2. Effect of Amendment. Except as amended by this Amendment, the terms
and provision of the Contract shall remain in full force and effect.

         3. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts, each
of which shall be deemed a duplicate original.

         4. Facsimile Signatures. Facsimile copies of any party's signature
hereon shall be deemed an original for all purposes.
<PAGE>

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be
executed as of the date first set forth above.

                                            SELLER:

                                            RS INVESTMENTS/STONEBRIDGE, LLC, a
                                            Colorado limited liability company


                                            By:
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Robert R. Short, Manager


                                            PURCHASER:


                                            THE GENESEE COMPANY, a Colorado
                                            corporation


                                            By:
                                                --------------------------------
                                                Terry T. Kyger, Vice President

                                       2
SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

PETER QUINN ELVIK, Petitioner, vs. ADAM P. LAXALT, ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. No. 69369 

# FILED JAN 1 4 2016

r.EMAN

- I EDO' 

### /111 4 At CIE


### ORDER DENYING PETITION This is a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus. Petitioner seeks an order directing that he be considered for parole pursuant to the legislative changes set forth in A.B. 267. 

### See A.B. 267, 78th Leg. (Nev. 2015). We have reviewed the documents submitted in this matter, and without deciding upon the merits of any claims raised therein, we decline to exercise original jurisdiction in this matter. 

### See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.170. This issue should be presented to the district court in the first instance where a factual record may be made regarding the computation of time served and where the district court may consider in the first instance the legislative amendments set forth in A.B. 267 and this court's recent decision in 

### State v. Boston, 131 Nev., Adv. Op. 98, P.3d

(0) I947A 4570).Hard
ditta 

### J. (2015) determining that the new legislation would apply to aggregate consecutive sentences.' Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.
J.

cc: Peter Quinn Elvik Attorney General/Carson City

'It appears that the petitioner named the wrong respondent in that the Director of the Department of Corrections determines when a prisoner is eligible to appear before the Parole Board. Petitioner may fix the error in naming the incorrect respondent in any new action filed in the district court.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A 40
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2425 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2425

To authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to participate in the planning, 
   design, and construction of the Bend Feed Canal Pipeline Project, 
                    Oregon, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 13, 2000

    Mr. Smith of Oregon (for himself and Mr. Wyden) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                      Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Bureau of Reclamation to participate in the planning, 
   design, and construction of the Bend Feed Canal Pipeline Project, 
                    Oregon, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Bend Feed Canal Pipeline Project Act 
of 2000''.

SEC. 2. FEDERAL PARTICIPATION.

    (a) The Secretary of the Interior, in cooperation with the Tumalo 
Irrigation District (referred to in this section as the ``District''), 
is authorized to participate in the planning, design, and construction 
of the Bend Feed Canal Pipeline Project, Oregon.
    (b) The Federal share of the costs of the project shall not exceed 
50 per centum of the total, and shall be non-reimbursable. The District 
shall receive credit from the Secretary toward the District's share of 
the project for any funds the District has provided toward the design, 
planning or construction prior to the enactment of this Act.
    (c) Funds received under this Act shall not be considered a 
supplemental or additional benefit under the Act of June 17, 1902 (82 
Stat. 388) and all Acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto.
    (d) Title to facilities constructed under this Act will be held by 
the District.
    (e) Operations and maintenance of the facilities will be the 
responsibility of the District.
    (f) There are authorized to be appropriated $2.5 million for the 
Federal share of the activities authorized under this Act.
    (g) The Bureau of Reclamation shall not charge the District more 
than one percent of the project cost for carrying out administrative or 
oversight activities under this Act.
                                 <all>
```
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Jaime Ramirez

- Valles, Jr.

, * From the 104 th District Court

of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 22418B

.

Vs. No. 11

- 20

- 00 202

- CR * October 16 , 20 20

The State of Texas

, * Per Curiam Memorand um Opinion

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J.,

sitting by assignment )

( Willson , J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that the appeal

should be dismissed

. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opi nion, the appeal

is dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000743456
<NAME> 83A.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         408,707
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  114,263
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               522,970
<PP&E>                                      16,876,929
<DEPRECIATION>                              14,575,786
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,824,113
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           43,133
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,780,980
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,824,113
<SALES>                                        498,027
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               511,750
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  536,523
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (24,773)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (24,773)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (24,773)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
C, "-Th. n. ((- 5 7 1 

i 

- 1., L .J C11 i L u 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

CODY LARSON, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

JIM SALMONSEN, Warden, 

MONTANA STATE PRISON, 

Respondent. 

OP 22-0161 

FILED 

APR 12 2022 

Bowen Greenwood 

Clerk of Supreme Court Stato of Montana 

ORDER 

Cody Larson petitions this Court for habeas corpus relief, indicating that his 

sentence is illegal because he was sentenced to the Department of Corrections (DOC) for 

more than five years with none of it suspended. He requests his immediate release. Larson 

is incarcerated in the Montana State Prison. 

Larson provides one paragraph in his Petition and no supporting documents. He 

states: 

The prison record department is not responding/cooperating with requests for 

supporting documents in Cause No. BDC-10-470A, which supports my 

claim in illegal incarceration/sentencing. It's been over 30 days in which 

these requests were made. 

We point out that the MSP Record Department does not give copies of sentencing 

judgments to offenders. An inmate must request a copy from the sentencing court. The 

MSP Record Department may give a copy of a sentence calculation upon proper request 

from an inmate. 

Available electronic records indicate that in October 2011, the Eighth Judicial 

District Court sentenced Larson to the DOC for fifteen years, all suspended, for felony 

sexual intercourse without consent. The District Court awarded 308 days of credit for time 

served. In 2014, Larson violated his probationary terms of his suspended sentence. The 

District Court re-imposed his fifteen-year sentence to the DOC, with all time suspended, 

04/12/2022

Case Number: OP 22-0161
and awarded 347 days ofjail time credit. In February 2015, the District Court held a second 

evidentiary and dispositional hearing on Larson's violations. The court accepted Larson's 

true answers to violations of three conditions, and the court sentenced him to the DOC for 

a fifteen-year term. The court awarded 442 days of credit for time served. 

Larson has not demonstrated an illegal sentence. Section 46-22-101(1), MCA. 

Pursuant to § 45-5-503(2), MCA, a court may sentence an offender to prison for term of 

twenty years for felony sexual intercourse without consent. The District Court has 

statutory authority, upon revocation of the original sentence, to impose any sentence that 

is not longer than the originally imposed sentence. Section 46-18-203(7)(a)(iii), MCA. 

His original fifteen-year sentence was entirely suspended. Following two reports of 

violations, however, the court twice revoked his suspended sentence, imposing a sentence 

that was not any longer. 

Larson cannot challenge his sentence upon revocation through the remedy of a writ 

of habeas corpus. Section 46-22-101(2), MCA. Larson is not entitled to release or habeas 

corpus relief here. Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that Larson's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED. 

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy of this Order to counsel of record and to 

Cody Larson personally. 

DATED this day of April, 2022. 

Chief Justice 

S24 Ai 44, 

2 
1 <;), 

Justices 

3
101st Congress, 1st Session House Document 101-105

VETO OF H.R. 3026

MESSAGE

FROM

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

TRANSMITTING

HIS VETO OF H.R. 3026, THE “DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1990”

Oc to b er 30, 1989.—Message and accompanying bill were ordered to be

printed October 30, 1989

39-012

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1989
To the House of Representatives:

I am returning herewith without my approval H.R. 3026, the ‘‘District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 1990.” I informed the Congress earlier that I would veto this bill if it permitted the use of appropriated funds to pay for abortions other than those in which the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term. The limitation I proposed is identi­ cal to the one included in the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for 1989 (Public Law 100-462). This year, regrettably, the Congress has expanded the circum­ stances in which Federal funds could be used to pay for abortions. Moreover, unlike Public Law 100-462, H.R. 3026 would also permit payment for abortions with local funds, which under current law m ust be appropriated by the Congress. Thus, H.R. 3026 would not restrict the use of such funds for abortion in any way. I am, therefore, compelled to disapprove H.R. 3026.

George Bush.

The White House, October 27, 1989.

( l )
# Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr.: A Featured Biography

**

----

Massachusetts senator Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., joined the Senate in 1937, continuing a family tradition of public service. Following graduation from Harvard University, Lodge pursued a career in journalism before entering politics. In 1936 he won a seat in the U.S. Senate, where he became a Republican spokesman for an internationalist foreign policy. During World War II Lodge took a leave of absence from the Senate to serve in the army in 1942. By the time he requested a second leave for military service in 1944, an order from Secretary of War Henry Stimson had barred current members of Congress from active military duty, forcing Lodge to resign his Senate seat in order to continue military service. “Given my age and training,” he informed the Senate on February 4, 1944, “I must henceforth serve my country as a combat soldier in the Army.” Elected again in 1946, he returned to the Senate after the war. When he lost his reelection bid to John F. Kennedy in 1952, Lodge began a diplomatic career that lasted nearly three decades, including service as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations in the 1950s, as ambassador to Vietnam in the 1960s, and as envoy to the Vatican in the 1970s.  

All Featured Biographies

        -  Contact 
        -  Leadership & Officers 
        -  Former Senators 
        -  Qualifications & Terms of Service 
        -  Facts & Milestones 
        -  States 

### Organizational Chart 

This chart shows the relationships among Senate leaders and officers who manage the flow of legislative and administrative business in the Senate.  

### Contact Your Senator 

Can't find your senator's name in the list of Senators?  Perhaps he or she is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, or a Senator in your State Legislature.

### Biographical Directory 

The Directory provides information about former and current senators.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-1829

___________________________

United States of America

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Corey Odom

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Kansas City

____________

 Submitted: February 25, 2016

Filed: March 3, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BENTON, BOWMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Corey Odom directly appeals after he pled guilty to a federal bank-fraud

conspiracy charge, and the district court varied upward fromthe advisory Guidelines

1

The Honorable Greg Kays, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the

1

Western District of Missouri.
range to impose a sentence of 63 months in prison and 5 years of supervised release. 

Odom’s counsel has moved to withdraw, and in a brief filed under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), counsel raises the issues of ineffective assistance of

counsel, the government’s failure to move for a U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 departure at

sentencing, and the district court’s failure to notify Odom of its intent to vary upward

from the Guidelines range. In a pro se supplemental brief, Odom refers to proposed

Guidelines amendments on white-collar crime.

Odom pled guilty pursuant to a written plea agreement that contained a waiver

of the right to appeal his conviction and sentence, subject to certain exceptions. After

careful de novo review, see United States v. Scott, 627 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir. 2010)

(standard of review), we will enforce the appeal waiver because the record shows

Odom entered into the plea agreement and its appeal waiver knowingly and

voluntarily, and enforcing the waiver would not cause a miscarriage of justice. The

issues raised in this appeal regarding a section 5K1.1 departure and the proposed

Guidelines amendments fall within the scope of the appeal waiver, and accordingly,

we decline to consider those issues. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886,

889-90 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (discussing enforcement of appeal waivers). 

Further, the issue of ineffective assistance is not properly raised in this direct appeal. 

See United States v. Looking Cloud, 419 F.3d 781, 788-89 (8th Cir. 2005). Only one

of the issuesraised--failure to notify Odom of intent to vary upward--may fall outside

the scope of the appeal waiver under the illegal-sentence exception, and therefore we

will consider it, but the claim is foreclosed by case law. See Irizarry v. United States,

553 U.S. 708, 714-16 (2008). 

Having independently reviewed the record pursuant to Penson v. Ohio, 488

U.S. 75 (1988), we find no nonfrivolous issues for appeal outside the scope of the

appeal waiver. The judgment is affirmed, and we grant counsel leave to withdraw. 

______________________________

-2-