alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
xone-ex102_14.htm



Exhibit 10.2

FIRST AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

 

This First Amendment is entered into this 3rd day of April, 2020 (the " Effective Date") and amends the Employment Agreement ("the Agreement") dated May 15, 2019 by and between John F. Hartner (hereinafter referred to as "Executive") and The ExOne Company ("ExOne"), a company duly organized under the laws of Delaware and having its principal office at 127 Industry Boulevard, North Huntingdon, PA,15642, U.S.A.

 

WHEREAS, Executive and ExOne entered into the Agreement; and

 

WHEREAS, Executive and ExOne wish to amend the Agreement with this First Amendment in light of the financial challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic; and

 

NOW, THEREFORE in consideration of the promises and mutual covenants contained herein and intending to be bound, the parties agree as follows:

 

The entire Agreement shall continue in effect in its present form with the sole exception that with respect to the language in Section 4.01 Base Salary, Executive and ExOne hereby agree to reduce the Executive’s base salary by 20%, to $300,000, for the second quarter of fiscal year 2020, effective April 6, 2020, and thereafter as mutually agreed by the parties.

 

There are no additional modifications to the remaining sections or provisions of the Agreement.  

 

This First Amendment is executed in writing pursuant to Section 10.02 of the Agreement and such amendment is effective upon the signatures of both parties below.

 

The Agreement, as amended by this First Amendment, constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter thereof and hereof, and supersedes all previous representations, agreements, understandings and negotiations with respect thereto.

 

This First Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered shall be an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this First Amendment to the Agreement.

 

 

THE EXONE COMPANY

 


	
By:
	
 
	
/s/ John F. Hartner
	
 
	
By:
	
 
	
/s/ Loretta L. Benec

	
 
	
 
	
John F. Hartner
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
Loretta L. Benec

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
General Counsel & Corporate Secretary

	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
 
	
April 3, 2020




 

{CGAL3268.1}
# Icing Research Tunnel

NASA Glenn’s Icing Research Tunnel (IRT) is one of the world’s largest refrigerated wind tunnels dedicated to the study of aircraft icing.  In the facility, natural icing conditions are simulated to test and study the effects of in-flight icing on actual full-sized aircraft components as well as models of aircraft, including helicopters.  The IRT can simulate flying conditions with airspeeds ranging from 50-350 knots and air temperatures as low as -40 ̊ F.Click on the arrows or any of the icons to learn more about the amazing capabilities of the IRT and see testing in action. 

**CLICK Anywhere To Start Tour**

    IRT: Test Section

    IRT: Control Room

    IRT: Back of Fan

    IRT: Front of Fan

# 

Touch and drag to view the 360-degree image
Exhibit 31.1
I, Thomas A. Daiber, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Centrue Financial Corporation; 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)  designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b)  [intentionally omitted]  c)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d)  disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):
 a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.        Date: May 12, 2005 /s/ Thomas A. Daiber   Thomas A. Daiber   Chief Executive Officer
I 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7331 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

11158 Highway 146 North in Hardin, Texas, as the ‘‘Lucas Lowe 

Post Office’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 19, 2018 

Mr. BABIN (for himself, Mr. WEBER of Texas, Ms. GRANGER, Mr. CONAWAY, 

Mr. HURD, Mr. VELA, Mr. THORNBERRY, Mr. VEASEY, Mr. SMITH of 

Texas, Mr. ARRINGTON, Mr. CARTER of Texas, Mr. CUELLAR, Mr. POE

of Texas, Ms. JACKSON LEE, Mr. MCCAUL, Mr. RATCLIFFE, Mr. GENE

GREEN of Texas, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. OLSON, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. 

CLOUD, Mr. AL GREEN of Texas, Mr. CULBERSON, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. 

GONZALEZ of Texas, Mr. FORTENBERRY, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. 

CHABOT, Mr. BOST, and Mr. CURTIS) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 11158 Highway 146 North in Hardin, Texas, 

as the ‘‘Lucas Lowe Post Office’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LUCAS LOWE POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 11158 Highway 146 North in 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 7331 IH

1 Hardin, Texas, shall be known and designated as the 

2 ‘‘Lucas Lowe Post Office’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

6 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Lucas Lowe Post Of7 fice’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1011

MELINDA SCOTT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ANDREW CARLSON; JOSHUA CONNER MOON,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big 

Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District Judge. (2:18-cv-00047-JPJ-PMS)

Submitted: April 22, 2019 Decided: July 2, 2019

Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Melinda L. Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Carlson, Appellee Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Melinda Scott seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her civil 

complaint without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) (2012). Under the 

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, an appellant’s brief must raise all the issues she 

wishes this court to review. Fed. R. App. P. 28. The failure to raise an issue results in its 

abandonment on appeal. See Hensley on behalf of N. Carolina v. Price, 876 F.3d 573, 

580 (4th Cir. 2017) (citing Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 241 n.6 (4th Cir. 

1999). Accordingly, we will review only the issues that Scott appellant has identified in 

her brief. 

Scott challenges only the district court’s “ruling that she has not stated a 

constitutional invasion of privacy claim based on the alleged violation of her Fourth 

Amendment rights by Defendant Carlson and Defendant Moon.” Appellant’s Brief 7. 

As the district court noted, Scott’s complaint contains no indication that either Defendant 

Carlson or Defendant Moon could be considered a state actor capable of violating her 

Fourth Amendment rights. 

 For the reasons explained by the district court, we affirm. We deny Scott’s 

motion to waive PACER fees and Appellee Andrew Carlson’s motion to suspend the 

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF RIBOZYME PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. FOR THE THREE AND SIX
MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                       9,431,041
<SECURITIES>                                 1,799,624
<RECEIVABLES>                                  234,675
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,738,894
<PP&E>                                      10,887,380
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,178,672
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              19,932,854
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,794,950
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        91,078
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,364,425
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                19,932,854
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,897,215
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             9,581,750
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             410,223
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (9,076,595)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (9,076,595)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (9,076,595)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                       
                                  EXHIBIT 11
                                       
                                       
                         HAGGAR CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                                       
                  COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE
               (UNAUDITED, IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                                       Three Months Ended
                                                 ------------------------------
                                                 December 31,       December 31
                                                     1996              1995
                                                 ------------       -----------

Net income to common stockholders                   $1,363            $1,004

Weighted average common shares and common
  share equivalents outstanding                      8,556             8,564
                                                    ------            ------

Net income per common share and common share
  equivalents                                       $ 0.16            $ 0.12
                                                    ------            ------


Computation of weighted average common shares
  and common share equivalents outstanding:

  Weighted average common shares outstanding         8,551             8,551

  Shares equivalents, due to stock options               5                13
                                                    ------            ------
                                                     8,556             8,564
                                                    ------            ------
                                                    ------            ------


                                       13
#### Jones *v.*Chapman.

*Tuesday, May*21.

If, in an action of slander, the words be proved to have been spoken affirmatively as they are laid, the charge is supported, though it appear that they were speken in answer to a question put by a third person, unless it also appear that the plaintiff caused the question to be put in order to procure a cause of action.

If the words were spoken maliciously, or if the defendant did not believe them to be true, the giving the name of the author did not lessen the offence.

Words charging the plaintiff with having robbed the *U.*States’ mail are actionable.

ERROR to the *Hancock*Circuit Court.

Blackford, *J.*

Chapman sued *Jones*in an action of slan-. der. The defendant pleaded, 1. Not guilty; 2. Not guilty within one year ; 3. That the defendant had heard the words from a third person!; and that the defendant, when he repeated them, gave his author. To the second plea, the plaintiff replied by denying it; and to the third, that the words were spoken falsely and maliciously. Yerdict for the plaintiff. The defendant moved for a new trial, but the motion was overruled, and judgment rendered on the verdict.

On the trial, the defendant asked the Court to instruct the jury that if the words were spoken in answer to a question put by the witness, they would not support the action. This instruction was rightly refused. If the words charged were proved to have been spoken *affirmatively*as they were laid, the charge was supported. That they were spoken in answer to a question put by a witness could make no difference; unless the plaintiff caused the question to be put for the purpose of procuring' a cause of action, which is not pretended in this case. *Yeates et ux.*v. *Reed et ux.*4 Blackf. 463.

The Court instructed the jury that if the words were spoken out of malice, or if the defendant did not believe them to be true, the giving the name of the author did not lessen the offence. This instruction is unobjectionable. *Crane*v. Douglass, 2 Blackf. *195.*—M'Pherson v. *Daniels,*10 Barn. & Cress. *263.*—Ward v. Weeks, 7 Bingh. 211.

It is contended that the words are not actionable. *The*words charged and proved, *inter alia,*were, that the plaintiff had robbed the *United States'*mail. There can be no doubt but that these words are actionable. To steal from *89the *United States'*mail any letter, &c. is made an indictable offence -by statute. Gord. Dig. 3612. The words spoken amount to a charge of that offence.

Ck *Fletcher*and *0.*Butler, for the plaintiff.

*P. Sweetser,*for the defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is affirmed with costs.
# James Free

Associate Administrator

          -   

Jim Free is NASA’s associate administrator, its third highest-ranking executive and highest-ranking civil servant. He is the senior advisor to NASA Administrator Bill Nelson and Deputy Administrator Pam Melroy. In his role, Free leads the agency’s 10 center directors as well as the mission directorate associate administrators at NASA Headquarters in Washington. He acts as the agency’s chief operating officer for more than 18,000 employees and an annual budget of more than $25 billion.

Previously, Free was associate administrator for the Exploration Systems Development Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters. In that role, Free was responsible for the development of NASA’s Moon to Mars architecture, defining and managing the systems development for NASA’s Artemis missions and planning for NASA’s integrated deep space exploration approach.

Prior to his selection as head of Exploration Systems Development, Free spent several years in various private sector roles after he left NASA in 2017. In his previous role at NASA, he served as the agency’s deputy associate administrator for technical in the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters.  

Prior to joining NASA Headquarters, he worked his way up to center director at NASA’s Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, where he was responsible for planning, organizing, and directing the activities required to accomplish the missions assigned to the center.  Free has served a variety of roles at NASA centers since beginning his career in 1990 at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. 

A native of Northeast Ohio, Free earned his bachelor’s degree in aeronautics from Miami University in Oxford, Ohio, and his master’s degree in space systems engineering from Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands.  

Free is the recipient of the Presidential Rank Award, NASA Distinguished Service Medal, NASA Outstanding Leadership Medal, NASA Exceptional Service Medal, NASA Significant Achievement Medal, and numerous other awards.  

## OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR

				See All                			

Bill Nelson
Administrator

Pam Melroy
Deputy Administrator

James Free
Associate Administrator

Susie Perez Quinn
Senior Advisor

Casey Swails
Deputy Associate Administrator

Bale Dalton
Chief of Staff

Thomas E. Cremins
Associate Administrator for Space Security Interests
108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1657

AN ACT

To amend section 44921 of title 49, United States Code,

to provide for the arming of cargo pilots against terrorism.

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

2

S 1657 ES

1 SECTION 1. ARMING CARGO PILOTS AGAINST TERRORISM.

2 (a) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con3 gress that members of a flight deck crew of a cargo air4 craft should be armed with a firearm and taser to defend

5 the cargo aircraft against an attack by terrorists that

6 could result in the use of the aircraft as a weapon of mass

7 destruction or for other terrorist purposes.

8 (b) ARMING CARGO PILOTS AGAINST TERRORISM.—

9 Section 44921 of title 49, United States Code, is

10 amended—

11 (1) in subsection (a) by striking ‘‘passenger’’

12 each place that it appears;

13 (2) in subsection (k)(2) by striking ‘‘flight or,’’

14 and all that follows through ‘‘command’’ and insert15 ing ‘‘flight or any other flight deck crew member’’;

16 and

17 (3) by adding at the end of subsection (k) the

18 following:

19 ‘‘(3) ALL-CARGO AIR TRANSPORTATION.—In

20 this section, the term ‘air transportation’ includes

21 all-cargo air transportation.’’.

22 (c) TIME FOR IMPLEMENTATION.—In carrying out

23 the amendments made by subsection (b), the Under Sec24 retary for Border and Transportation Security of the De25 partment of Homeland Security shall ensure that pilots

26 of both passenger and cargo aircraft are treated equitably
†

3

S 1657 ES

1 in receiving access to training as Federal flight deck offi2 cers.

3 (d) EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.—The requirements of

4 subsection (c) shall have no effect on the deadlines for im5 plementation contained in section 44921 of title 49,

6 United States Code, as in effect on the day before the date

7 of enactment of this Act.

Passed the Senate November 10, 2003.

Attest:

Secretary.
108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1657

AN ACT

To amend section 44921 of title 49, United States

Code, to provide for the arming of cargo pilotsagainst terrorism.
F I LED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 13, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

MICHAEL J. JOSEPH,

Plaintiff ! Appellant,

v.

UTAH BOARD OF PARDONS,

Defendant ! Appellee.

No. 09-4227

(D.C. No. 2:09-CV-00726-TC)

ORDER

The captioned appeal is dismissed for lack of prosecution pursuant to 

10th Cir. R. 42.1.

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of this court.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 09-4227 Document: 01018421164 Date Filed: 05/13/2010 Page: 1
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1322

NSONSA KISALA,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

HIGH'S DAIRIES, INCORPORATED, d/b/a East Coast

Ice Cream,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.

(CA-95-1320-JFM)

Submitted: August 30, 1996 Decided: October 30, 1996

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nsonsa Kisala, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew William Oakey, Thomas N.

Biddison, Jr., GALLAGHER, EVELIUS & JONES, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Nsonsa Kisala appeals from the district court order granting

summary judgment to the Defendant in his employment discrimination

action alleging constructive discharge based on race, national

origin, and the exercise of constitutional rights, and unequal pay

based on race and national origin. He also argues that the district

court's grant of summary judgment prior to resolution of an outstanding motion to compel discovery constitutes a denial of due

process. The Defendant argues that contrary to Kisala's assertion,

he did not resign, but rather was terminated for poor performance

and inability to function with his co-workers. The district court

accepted the Defendant's version of termination and examined

Kisala's claim as one of discriminatory discharge. We have considered both versions of Kisala's departure, reviewed the record

and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's grant of summary

judgment as to his claims of discharge, constructive or otherwise,

based on race and national origin.

Turning to the remaining claims of constructive discharge for

the exercise of constitutional rights and unequal pay based on race

in violation of Title VII, we again find that Kisala has failed to

establish a prima facie case. Finally, we find that any error which

may have occurred in the grant of summary judgment prior to the

resolution of Kisala's motion to compel discovery was harmless and

does not warrant reversal.
3

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's grant of summary

judgment in favor of the Defendant. 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