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

 

**AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO**

**EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**

 

This Amendment No. 3 toEmployment Agreement (this “Third Amendment”), by and among Conrad Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Conrad Shipyard, L.L.C., a Louisiana limited liability company (together, the “Company”), and John P. Conrad, Jr.(“Executive”) is hereby entered into effective as of September 15, 2003. 

 

**W I T N E S S E T H:**

 

**WHEREAS**, the Company and Executive have entered into that certain Employment Agreement, dated as of March 31, 1998, as amended by that certain Amendment No. 1 to Employment Agreement, dated as of March 31, 2001, by and between theCompany and Executive, and that certain Amendment No. 2 to Employment Agreement, dated as of March 31, 2002, by and between the Company and Executive (as amended, the “Employment Agreement”); and 

 

**WHEREAS**, the Company and Executive desire to further amend theEmployment Agreement as set forth herein; 

 

**NOW,THEREFORE**, for and in consideration of the continued employment of Executive by the Company and the payment of salary and other compensation to Executive by the Company, the parties hereto agree as follows: 

 

**Section 1.**    Except as expressly amended hereby,all of the terms and provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. Capitalized terms used herein, unless otherwise defined herein, shall have the meaning given to them in the Employment Agreement. 

 

**Section 2.**    The first sentence of paragraph 2(a)of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows: 

 

The base salary payable to Executive during the term shall be 

$190,000 per year, payable in accordancewith the Company’s 

payroll procedures for executives, but not less frequently than 

monthly. 

 

*[signatures appear on the following page]*

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Third Amendment to be duly executed and signed asof the date indicated above. 

 

CONRAD INDUSTRIES, INC.
By: /s/ MICHAEL J. HARRIS   
Michael J. Harris

Chairman, Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Conrad Industries, Inc.

 

CONRAD SHIPYARD, L.L.C.

By:
 /s/ KENNETH G. MYERS, JR.   
Kenneth G. Myers, Jr.

President

 

EXECUTIVE
/s/ JOHN P. CONRAD, JR.John P. Conrad, Jr.
 

Amendment No. 3to Employment Agreement 

John P. Conrad, Jr. 

Page 2
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3843 

To require the Environmental Protection Agency to issue analyses on the 

environmental and economic impacts of rules and rulemakings of the 

Environmental Protection Agency, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 15, 2022 

Ms. ERNST introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

A BILL 

To require the Environmental Protection Agency to issue 

analyses on the environmental and economic impacts of 

rules and rulemakings of the Environmental Protection 

Agency, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘EPA Transparency 

5 Act of 2022’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPORT. 

7 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3843 IS

1 (1) ADMINISTRATOR.—The term ‘‘Adminis2 trator’’ means the Administrator of the Environ3 mental Protection Agency. 

4 (2) DATA OF ECONOMIC HARM.—The term 

5 ‘‘data of economic harm’’, with respect to a major 

6 EPA-promulgated rule or rulemaking, means data, 

7 facts, and figures that can be measured, traced, and 

8 validated with respect to the economic harm that is 

9 anticipated to be caused by the major EPA-promul10 gated rule or rulemaking. 

11 (3) DATA OF ENVIRONMENTAL HARM.—The 

12 term ‘‘data of environmental harm’’, with respect to 

13 a major EPA-promulgated rule or rulemaking, 

14 means data, facts, and figures that can be meas15 ured, traced, and validated with respect to the envi16 ronmental harm that would be caused without the 

17 promulgation or issuance of the major EPA-promul18 gated rule or rulemaking. 

19 (4) MAJOR EPA-PROMULGATED RULE OR RULE20 MAKING.—The term ‘‘major EPA-promulgated rule 

21 or rulemaking’’ means a final rule or policy of the 

22 Administrator— 

23 (A) the promulgation of which was not ex24 plicitly authorized by an Act of Congress; and 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 3843 IS

1 (B) that increases the control or influence 

2 of the Federal Government over the property or 

3 constitutional rights of an individual as com4 pared to before the date of promulgation of the 

5 rule or policy, as determined by the Adminis6 trator. 

7 (5) SMALL BUSINESS.—The term ‘‘small busi8 ness’’ means a privately owned corporation, partner9 ship, or sole proprietorship that has— 

10 (A) fewer than 1,500 employees; and 

11 (B) not more than $38,500,000 in average 

12 annual receipts. 

13 (b) REPORT REQUIRED.—Not later than 30 days 

14 after the date on which a major EPA-promulgated rule 

15 or rulemaking is promulgated, the Administrator shall 

16 submit to Congress and make publicly available a report 

17 that describes, with respect to the major EPA-promul18 gated rule or rulemaking, an analysis of— 

19 (1) the data of environmental harm; and 

20 (2) the data of economic harm with respect to 

21 small businesses. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

IN THE MATTER OF RESIGNATION No. 70183 

OF GARY A. HENGSTLER, BAR NO. 

9477. FILE 

BY 

MAY 0 9 2016 

TA- E K. LINDEMAN 

et, eithe `E RT 

.11DE rv - --tr 

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR RESIGNATION 

This is a joint petition by the State Bar of Nevada and 

attorney Gary A. Hengstler for his resignation from the Nevada bar. 

SCR 98(5) provides that Nevada attorneys who are not 

actively practicing law in this state may resign from the state bar if 

certain conditions are met. The petition includes statements from state 

bar staff confirming that no disciplinary, fee dispute arbitration, or client 

security fund matters are pending against Hengstler; and that he is 

current on all membership fee payments and other financial commitments 

relating to his practice of law in this state. See SCR 98(5)(a)(1)-(2). 

Bar counsel has recommended that the resignation be 

approved, and the Board of Governors has approved the application for 

resignation. See SCR 98(5)(a)(2). Hengstler acknowledges that his 

resignation is irrevocable and that the state bar retains continuing 

jurisdiction with respect to matters involving a past member's conduct 

prior to resignation. See SCR 98(5)(c)-(d). Finally, Hengstler has 

submitted an affidavit of compliance with SCR 115. See SCR 98(5)(e). 

(0) PIO* e 6- *132_ 
The petition satisfies the requirements of SCR 98(5). 

Accordingly, we approve attorney Gary A. Hengstler's resignation. SCR 

98(5)(a)(2). The petition is hereby granted. 

It is so ORDERED. 

C.J. 

Parraguirre 

, J. 

Hardesty 

< 

J. 

Douglas 

Pickering 

cc: Gary A. Hengstler 

C. Stanley Hunterton, Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada 

Kimberly K. Farmer, Executive Director, State Bar of Nevada 

Perry Thompson, Admissions Officer, U.S. Supreme Court 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A peep,
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 29 (Friday, February 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 7623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02874]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #14614 and # 14615]


Florida Disaster #FL-00110

AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a 
disaster for the State of Florida dated 02/05/2016.
    Incident: Tornado
    Incident Period: 01/09/2016.
    Effective Date: 02/05/2016.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 04/05/2016.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: 11/07/2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of 
the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster 
loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally 
announced locations.
    The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected 
by the disaster:

Primary Counties: Lee.
Contiguous Counties:
    Florida: Charlotte, Collier, Glades, Hendry.

    The Interest Rates are:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Physical Damage:
  Homeowners With Credit Available Elsewhere.................      3.625
  Homeowners Without Credit Available Elsewhere..............      1.813
  Businesses With Credit Available Elsewhere.................      6.000
  Businesses Without Credit Available Elsewhere..............      4.000
  Non-Profit Organizations With Credit Available Elsewhere...      2.625
  Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere      2.625
For Economic Injury:
  Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives Without Credit      4.000
   Available Elsewhere.......................................
  Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere      2.625
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 14614 C 
and for economic injury is 14615 0.
    The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is Florida.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

    Dated: February 5, 2016.
Maria Contreras-Sweet,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-02874 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TAYLOR PROFITA, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

STEPHEN ANDERSEN; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-56192 

D.C. No. 2:18-cv-00286-PA-DFM 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 21, 2019**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit Judges.

Taylor Profita appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing 

his action alleging federal and state law claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Serra v. Lappin, 600 F.3d 1191, 1195 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAY 30 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-56192 

(9th Cir. 2010). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record, Thompson v. 

Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.

To the extent that Profita’s claims sought to have the district court probate a 

will, administer an estate, or dispose of property in the custody of the state probate 

court, the district court properly dismissed those claims for lack of jurisdiction 

under the probate exception because federal courts lack jurisdiction over probate 

matters. See Marshall v. Marshall, 547 U.S. 293, 311-12 (2006).

To the extent that Profita alleged legal error in any prior state court 

proceeding, dismissal of Profita’s claims was proper because the Rooker-Feldman

doctrine bars a de facto appeal of prior state court decisions and claims inextricably 

intertwined with the state court decisions. See Noel v. Hall, 341 F.3d 1148, 1163-

65 (9th Cir. 2003) (Rooker-Feldman bars de facto appeals of a state court decision 

and constitutional claims “inextricably intertwined” with the state court decision); 

see also Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 525 F.3d 855, 859 (9th Cir. 2008) (a de 

facto appeal is one in which “the adjudication of the federal claims would undercut 

the state ruling or require the district court to interpret the application of state laws 

or procedural rules” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)).

To the extent that any state court proceedings were ongoing, dismissal of 

Profita’s claims was proper because the Younger abstention doctrine bars a federal 

court from interfering with pending state court proceedings. See ReadyLink 
3 18-56192 

Healthcare, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 754 F.3d 754, 758-59 (9th Cir. 2014) 

(federal courts are required to abstain from interfering with pending state court 

proceedings where “the federal action would have the practical effect of enjoining 

the state proceedings”).

All pending motions and requests are denied.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 31.4

CERTIFICATIONS

I, David A. Henry, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of American Superconductor Corporation;
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; and
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Date:
June 8, 2012



/S/ DAVID A. HENRYDavid A. HenryChief Financial Officer
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 22

- 00443

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1 Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 2022

- 003829

- 1

Be fore Kerr, Birdwell, and Bassel, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### V ERONICA 

### L YNNE 

### S TEPHENS 

### , Appellant

V



### . T HE 

### A PT AT 

### F OUNTAINS 

### C ORNER 

### , Appellee2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT On February 7, 2023, we notified appellant that her brief had not been filed as the appellate rules require. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a). We stated that we could dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless , within ten days, appellant filed with

the court a n appellant ’ s brief and a n accompanying motion reasonably explaining the brief’s untimely filing and why an extension was needed. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b), 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). We have received no response. Because appellant has failed to file a brief even after we afforded an opportunity to explain the initial failure, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)( 1), 4 2 .3(b), 43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Delivered : March 23, 2023
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Actuarial Publications |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|

| www.socialsecurity.gov | Home  FAQs  Contact Us  Search | **Search**  |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|

| Solvency provisions | Summary Measures and Graphs |
|---------------------|-----------------------------|

| Payroll Taxes (including maximum taxable) | Description of Proposed Provision:      Apply 2 percent payroll tax rate on earnings over $300,000 in 2017, with the $300,000 threshold wage-indexed after 2017.  Give no benefit credit for additional earnings in AIME for benefit computation. |
|-------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                           |

*Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions        of the 2009 Trustees Report*

|  |  |
|--|--|

|        |
|--------|
|   | Privacy Policy      | Website Policies        & Other Important Information      | Site Map     Last reviewed or modified May 14, 2010 |
#### CLEVELAND MILL AND POWER COMPANY v. A. A. RICHARDS, F. M. NEWTON and C. A. BRITTAIN et al., a Partnership, Trading Under the Firm Name and Style of FARMERS GIN COMPANY, Defendants.

(Filed 22 February, 1933.)

Trial F a—

Where the issues submitted are sufficient in form and substance to present all phases of the controversy to the jury an exception thereto will not be sustained.

Civil action, before *McElroy, J.,*at Spring Term, 1932, of Cleveland.

Tbe plaintiff instituted suit against tbe defendants to recover tbe sum of $1,442.74, paid through error and mistake, in settlement for sixteen bales of cotton. Tbe defendant denied that any error bad occurred in tbe payment for sixteen bales of cotton. Both parties offered evidence tending to support their respective theories.

Tbe following issues were submitted to tbe jury:

(1) “Did tbe defendants on 15 October, 1929, deliver to tbe plaintiff tbe sixteen bales of cotton which are in controversy in this action ?”

(2) What amount, if any, is tbe plaintiff entitled to recover of defendants ?”

Tbe jury answered tbe first issue “No,” and tbe second issue “$1,442.74.”

From judgment upon tbe verdict tbe defendants appealed.

*Ryburn & Hoey for plaintiff.*

*B. T. Falls for defendants.*

Pee Curiam.

Tbe defendants contended that tbe controversy should have been solved by an issue of indebtedness, and that tbe submission of *the*first issue deprived them of certain elements of defense.

Issues arise upon tbe pleadings and “it has been held by this Court that where issues submitted by tbe court to tbe jury are sufficient in form and substance to present all phases of tbe controversy between tbe parties, there is no ground for exception to tbe same. ... A new trial will not ordinarily be granted by this Court where it appears that tbe issues submitted to tbe jury presented for their determination tbe essential questions in controversy, although other questions not determinative of liability are also included in tbe issues.” *Bank v. Bank,*197 N. C., 526, 150 S. E., 34.

An examination of tbe record and briefs of counsel discloses conflicting evidence upon disputed issues of fact. A verdict for either party *773would have been supported by tbe evidence introduced at tbe trial. No error of law in tbe admission of testimony or tbe instructions of tbe trial judge is apparent as we interpret tbe record, bence tbe verdict and judgment tbereon are determinative.

Affirmed.
EXHIBIT 31.1

Certification of Principal Executive Officer

Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 / SEC Rule 13a14(a)

I, Thomas L. Tullie, certify that:

1. I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Path 1 Network Technologies Inc.

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

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

4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:

a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures
to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
quarterly report is being prepared;

b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data; and

b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|Date: August 21, 2006                
|                                     
|/s/    Thomas L. Tullie              
|Thomas L. Tullie                     
|President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 10.1


 


CYCLACEL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.


200 Connell Drive, Suite 1500


Berkeley Heights, NJ 07922


 


December 28, 2022


 


Mr. Spiro Rombotis


c/o Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals, Inc.


200 Connell Drive, Suite 1500


Berkeley Heights, NJ 07922


 


Dear Mr. Rombotis:


 


Reference is made to the agreement
between us (the “Agreement”) made as of January 1, 2021. This will confirm our agreement to extend the Agreement through the
period ended June 1, 2023, effective as of January 1, 2023. Please confirm your agreement to the foregoing by signing below in the space
provided.


 


	 	Sincerely,
	 	 
	 	CYCLACEL
    PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    Paul McBarron
	 	Name: 	Paul
    McBarron
	 	Title:	EVP,
    Finance & COO




 


	ACKNOWLEDGED
    AND AGREED:	 
	 	 
	/s/
    Spiro Rombotis	 
	Spiro
    Rombotis