alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
gifi-ex103_282.htm



Exhibit 10.3

 

 

<<FULL_NAME>>

<<POSITION_TITLE>>

March 3, 2020

 

Dear <<FULL_NAME>>:

 

As an incentive for your continued employment with Gulf Island Fabrication, Inc. (“the Company”), you are eligible for a retention payment totaling $__________ (the “Retention Payment”), which shall vest and be paid in [one/two] installment[s], subject to standard tax withholdings. In order to vest in an installment of the Retention Payment, you must be actively employed as of the [applicable] “Payment Date” noted below.

 


		
	
Payment Date
	
Payment Amount

	
June 30, 2020
	
$

	
December 31, 2020
	
$




 

Except as provided below, if your employment with the Company terminates for any reason or if you give notice of your intent to terminate your employment prior to [either/the] Payment Date, you will not earn or receive any unpaid portion of the Retention Payment. If you are terminated by the Company without “Cause” (as defined below) prior to [either/the] Payment Date, you will receive a payment for any unpaid portion of the Retention Payment, which shall be paid to you on the 60th day flowing your termination date, provided you execute and deliver to the Company (without subsequent revocation) a waiver and release in the form provided by the Company (the “Release”) within the time-frame specified in the Release.  If you do not timely execute the Release or if you validly revoke any part of the Release, the Company will have no obligation to provide the Retention Payment.  The Company shall provide you with a form of the Release within five (5) days after your termination date. 

 

For purposes of this notice, and except as otherwise noted below, “Cause” shall mean: (i) your failure to substantially perform your material duties owed to the Company (other than as a results of incapacity due to physical or mental illness); (ii) your gross negligence, fraud or willful misconduct in the course of your employment that has a detrimental effect on the Company; (iii) your commission of any act or your failure to take any act that the Company reasonably determines was intended by you to injure the reputation, business, or business relationships of the Company; (iv) your indictment of, conviction of, or pleas of guilty or nolo contendere to (a) any misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, theft, unethical business conduct or other conduct which could reflect in some material fashion unfavorably upon the Company or (b) any felony (or the equivalent of such misdemeanor or felony in a jurisdiction other than the United States); or (v) your intentional, material misappropriation, embezzlement, or misuse of funds or property belonging to the Company.  However, if you are party to a Change of Control Agreement with the Company, “Cause” shall have the meaning set forth in that agreement.

 

This notice does not alter the “at will” nature of your employment, which may be terminated by you or the Company at any time. 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

________________

[Title]
#### GEORGE C. T. REMINGTON v. CLIFFORD G. REMINGTON.

June 27, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
# Apollo 13 MCC – MSC

S70-34986 (14 April 1970) --- A group of six astronauts and two flight controllers monitor the console activity in the Mission Operations Control Room (MOCR) of the Mission Control Center (MCC) during the problem-plagued Apollo 13 lunar landing mission.  Seated, left to right, are MOCR Guidance Officer Raymond F. Teague; astronaut Edgar D. Mitchell, Apollo 14 prime crew lunar module pilot; and astronaut Alan B. Shepard Jr., Apollo 14 prime crew commander.  Standing, left to right, are scientist-astronaut Anthony W. England; astronaut Joe H. Engle, Apollo 14 backup crew lunar module pilot; astronaut Eugene A. Cernan, Apollo 14 backup crew commander; astronaut Ronald E. Evans, Apollo 14 backup crew command module pilot; and M.P. Frank, a flight controller.  When this picture was made, the Apollo 13 moon landing had already been canceled, and the Apollo 13 crew men were in trans-Earth trajectory attempting to bring their damaged spacecraft back home.

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/amf-s70-34986/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareTags- Apollo 13
TakenApril 14, 1970ProducerJSCSize1920x1239pxPIA Numbers70-34986The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.
- About NASA's Mission
Join Us- Home
- News & Events
- Multimedia
- NASA+
- Missions
- Humans in Space
- Earth & Climate
- The Solar System
- The Universe
- Science
- Aeronautics
- Technology
- Learning Resources
- About NASA
- NASA en Español
Follow NASA-   
-   
-   
-   
- 
- More NASA Social Accounts
- NASA Newsletters
- Sitemap
- For Media
- Privacy Policy
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
- Office of the IGBudget & Annual Reports
Agency Financial Reports
Contact NASA
Accessibility
-  									Page Last Updated:								  								Mar 29, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								   
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
#### Myres *v.*Roundtree, et al.

Timber on Widow’s Dower May be Sold by Her.

The widow may sell timber from her deceased husband’s land in order to purchase work stock to cultivate the farm.

APPEAL TROM HART CIRCUIT COURT.

June 15, 1866.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Peters:

Tbe testator, Henry Roundtree, provided in bis will tbat bis widow should sell certain town lots, and 100 acres of land in *176Green county to pay his debts, and if they proved insufficient for that purpose, she was directed to sell so much of his personal estate as might be required to pay the residue thereof.

The 100 acres of land as appears by the evidence were lost to the estate, and it does not appear that the town lots have been sold; the debts, from the lapse of time since the testator’s death, we must presume have all been paid by her without the sale of any real estate.

Mrs. Koundtree had the misfortune to lose her work stock, and had not the means to cultivate her lands. She had, as is shown from the evidence, a considerable family, nearly all females, and unable to do field labor; she was an economical, prudent woman, and in order to make her land productive she was compelled to have stock to cultivate it; and the timber'which was sold could be more conveniently spared than anything else she had, and from the conflict in the evidence, it is even doubtful whether the sale and removal of the timber was of serious detriment to the inheritance. We are not satisfied that the judgment is erroneous and it is, therefore, affirmed.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of Dale Jarrett Racing Adventure, Inc. (the
"Company"), hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that the
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31,
2007 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

                                 /s/ Timothy B. Shannon
                                 ----------------------
                                 Timothy B. Shannon
                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                 Chief Financial Officer

March 28, 2008
#### Smith, Administratrix, *v.*Smith.

A *scire facias by*an administrator to have execution against replevin-bail entered on a judgment in favour of the intestate, need not allege that the judgment had been revived.

ERROR to the *Warren*Circuit Court.

Perkins, *'J.*

Scire *facias*before a justice of the peace by *Nancy Smith,*administratrix of the estate of *.John Smith,*deceased, against *Isaac W. Smith*as replevin-bail. Judg*60ment before the justice for the plaintiff, and appeal by the .defendant to the Circuit Court. The cause was there dismissed on the ‘defendant’s .motion, because the *scire facias*did not show that the judgment against the principal had been revived in the name of the administratrix, the plaintiff in the *scire facias.*

*G. B. Joiner,*for the plaintiff.

*H. S. Lane*and *S. C. Willson,*for *the*defendant.

Whether it should have shown such revivor is the only question submitted.

A suit against replevin-bail is an original action. It could be instituted under the law governing this case, so soon as the liability of the bail for the debt of the principal became absolute. That happened on the return of “ no property found” to an execution against the goods of the principal. But although a suit could not be sustained against the bail till after such issue and return of execution, it has been held by this Court not necessary that the *scire facias*in the case should show those acts to have been done. *Brison*v. *Street,*5 Blackf. 359. There could have been no necessity for reviving the original judgment by the plaintiff in this case, except to procure their performance; and as it is unnecessary that that should be averred in the *scire facias, a fortiori,*it cannot be necessary that a revivor shbuld be. Should it appear . upon the trial that there had been a return, in the lifetime of the judgment plaintiff, of “no property found” to an execution, that fact would render it unnecessary for the 'present plaintiff to prove a revivor of the judgment in order to sus-' tain her action.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed with costs. - Cause remanded, &c.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose CRUZ-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-50178.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 20, 2003.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant US Attorney, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Donna F. Coltharp, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before JONES, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Jose Cruz-Sanchez appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Cruz-Sanchez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Cruz-Sanchez maintains that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.

In *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. *Id.*at 239-47, 118 S.Ct. 1219. Cruz-Sanchez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres,*but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 490, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review.

*Apprendi*did not overrule *Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,*530 U.S. at 489-90, 120 S.Ct. 2348; *United States v. Dabeit,*231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000). This court must follow *Almendarez-Torres*“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” *Dabeit,*231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.

*

 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1692 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 332
108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1692

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 38 Spring Street in Nashua, New Hampshire, as the ``Hugh Gregg Post 
                           Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 1, 2003

  Mr. Sununu introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
           referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs

                            October 27, 2003

               Reported by Ms. Collins, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 38 Spring Street in Nashua, New Hampshire, as the ``Hugh Gregg Post 
                           Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. HUGH GREGG POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 38 Spring Street in Nashua, New Hampshire, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Hugh Gregg Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the Hugh Gregg 
Post Office Building.

                                                       Calendar No. 332

108th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1692

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 38 Spring Street in Nashua, New Hampshire, as the ``Hugh Gregg Post 
                           Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            October 27, 2003

                       Reported without amendment
```
#### Carlton *v.*The State.—In error.

THE establishment of a road whose width is not defined is void. *White*v. *Conover,*5 Blackf. 462.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

___________________

No. 11

- 50792

___________________

JESUS C. HERNANDEZ, Individually and as the surviving father of Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca, and as Successor−in−Interest to the Estate of Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca; MARIA GUADALUPE GUERECA BENTACOUR, Individually and as the surviving mother of S ergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca, and as Successor−in−Interest to the Estate of Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca, Plaintiffs − Appellants

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; UNITED STATES BUREAU OF CUSTOMS

AND BORDER P ROTECTION; UNITED STATES BORDER PATROL;

UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT AGENCY; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendants − Appellees

−−− −−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−− CONS w/ 12−50217

JESUS C. HERNANDEZ, Individually and as the surviving father of Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca, and as Successor−in−Interest to the Estate of Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca; MARIA GUADALUPE GUERECA BENTACOUR, Individually and as the surviving mother of Sergio Adrian

Hernand ez Guereca, and as Successor−in−Interest to the Estate of Sergio Adrian Hernandez, Plaintiffs − Appellants

v.

JESUS MESA, JR., Defendant − Appellee

−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−− −−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−− United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit 

### FILED
July 2 6 , 2017

Lyle W. Cayce
ClerkCONS w/ 12−50301

JESUS C. HERNANDEZ, Individually and as the surviving father of Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca, and as Successor−in−Interest to the Estate of Sergio Adrian Hernandez Guereca; MARIA GUADALUPE GUERE BENTACOUR, Individually and as the surviving mother of Ser gio Adrian Hernandez Guereca, and as Successor−in−Interest to the Estate of Sergio Adrian Hernandez, Plaintiffs − Appellants

v.

RAMIRO CORDERO; VICTOR M. MANJARREZ, JR., Defendants − Appellees

____________________

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas, El Paso

____________________

ON REMAND FROM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

(Opinion June 30

, 2014, 5 Cir., 2014, 757 F.3d 249 ) (Opinion on En Banc Rehearing April 24, 2015, 5 Cir., 2015, 785 F.3d 117)

Be fore STEWART, Chief Judge, JOLLY, JONES, SMITH, DENNIS,

C LEMENT, PRADO, OWEN, ELROD, SOUTHWICK, HAYNES, GRAVES

, HIGGINSON and COSTA , Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

IT IS ORDERED that this cause shall be rehe ard by the court en banc

with oral argument on September 20, 2017

. Briefing instructions will follow

in a separate court directive.
```

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 209 (Friday, October 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 66794]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27388]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-73,722]

Sojitz Corporation of America, a Subsidiary of Sojitz 
Corporation, Forest Products Department, Seattle, WA; Notice of 
Affirmative Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration

    By application dated September 23, 2010, by a Washington State 
workforce official requested administrative reconsideration of the 
negative determination regarding workers' eligibility to apply for 
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) applicable to workers and former 
workers of Sojitz Corporation of America, a subsidiary of Sojitz 
Corporation, Forest Products Department, Seattle, Washington (subject 
firm). The determination was issued on September 1, 2010. The 
Department's Notice of Determination was published in the Federal 
Register on September 21, 2010 (75 FR 57517). The workers provide 
services related to the trade of forest products.
    The negative determination was based on the findings that the 
subject firm did not, during the period under investigation, shift to a 
foreign country the supply of services like or directly competitive 
with the services performed by the workers or acquire these services 
from a foreign country; that the workers' separation, or threat of 
separation, was not related to any increase in imports of like or 
directly competitive services; and that the workers did not produce an 
article or supply a service that was directly used in the production of 
an article or the supply of service by a firm that employed a worker 
group that is eligible to apply for TAA based on the aforementioned 
article or service.
    In the request for reconsideration, the petitioners alleged that 
the subject firm has shifted services to a foreign country.
    The Department has carefully reviewed the request for 
reconsideration and the existing record, and has determined that the 
Department will conduct further investigation to determine if the 
petitioning workers meet the eligibility requirements of the Trade Act 
of 1974, as amended.

Conclusion

    After careful review of the application, I conclude that the claim 
is of sufficient weight to justify reconsideration of the U.S. 
Department of Labor's prior decision. The application is, therefore, 
granted.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 18th day of October 2010.
Elliott S. Kushner,
Certifying Officer, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-27388 Filed 10-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
```
1

The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-3229

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Marcus Deangelo Jones, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 30, 2008

Filed: January 8, 2009

___________

Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Marcus Jones appeals the district court’s1

 denial of his Federal Rule of Criminal

Procedure 36 motion to correct his presentence report (PSR) to omit references to

“crack.” We find that Jones’s proposed change does not amount to a clerical error or

an error arising from oversight or omission. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 36. Jones did not

object to the PSR prior to sentencing, see United States v. Paz, 411 F.3d 906, 909 (8th

Cir. 2005) (facts in PSR are deemed admitted unless objected to), and there is
-2-

overwhelming evidence that the drugs at issue were crack cocaine, see United States

v. Jones, 275 F.3d 673, 676-78 (8th Cir. 2001).

Accordingly, we affirm. We also deny Jones’s motion for appellate counsel.

______________________________
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 8, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

JIHAD AL!ALI,

Plaintiff ! Appellant,

v.

SALT LAKE CITY; RALPH BECKER,

Mayor; SALT LAKE CITY POLICE

DEPARTMENT; CHRIS BURBANK,

Chief; MIKE EVANIS, Officer; SALT

LAKE CITY PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE;

SALT LAKE CITY JUSTICE COURT;

VIRGINIA WARD,

Defendants ! Appellees.

No. 10-4036

(D.C. No. 2:09-CV-01069-DAK)

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: 10-4036 Document: 01018453773 Date Filed: 07/08/2010 Page: 1
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOSEPH FLUKER.

June 21, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CHERYL CUNNINGHAM.

May 2, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Newtek Business Services, Inc. (the Company), for the period ended December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), the undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, that, to the best of our knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of the Company.



/S/ BARRY SLOANEBarry Sloane, Chief Executive Officer/S/ SETH A. COHENSeth A. Cohen, Chief Financial Officer


March 20, 2009
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. EDGAR HENTZ.

July 11, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.