alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ellison *v.*Chapman.

Wednesday, *July*24.

If, by an agreement between two persons, one agrees to furnish a specified sum of money to carry on a certain business of the parties, and afterwards fails to furnish the money, he is liable to the other at law for such breach of contract.

An objection to an award returned to the Circuit Court, on account of its not . having been returned in time, is waived if not made in that Court. v If a suit pending in the Circuit Court be referred to arbitrators, and the parties agree that the award shall be made the judgment of the Court, judgment may be rendered on the award without a *scire facias.*

ERROR to the *La Grange*Circuit Court.

-Blackford, J.

— This was an action of covenant brought by *Chapman*against *Ellison.*The suit was founded on an agreement under seal by which the parties agreed, *inter*alia, that the defendant should furnish 2,000 dollars for the purchase of public land; that the plaintiff should select the land to be purchased, &c.; that the parties should each attend to the buying and selling of the land ; and that the plaintiff should have one-third of the profits of the business. There are several breaches assigned, one of which is, that the defendant failed to furnish the 2,000 dollars. By agreement of the parties, the cause was referred to arbitrators, who were to return their award to the first day of the then next term of the Court, and the award was to be made the judgment of the Court. On the second day of the term next after the order of reference, the parties appeared, an award was returned in favour of the plaintiff, and the defendant was ruled to show cause, on or before the calling of the suit, why judg*225ment should not be rendered on the award. At a subsequent day of the term the suit was called; and no cause being shown, judgment was rendered on the award.

*H.*Cooper, for the plaintiff.

*J. B.*Howe, for the defendant.

The defendant contends that this is a case of partnership, and that an action at law will not lie by one partner against another; but this objection to the. suit is not well founded. There are many cases where an action at law lies by one partner against another for the non-performance of a covenant contained in the articles of partnership, and this is one of those cases. Cary on Part. 71.—*Venning*v. Leckie, 13 East, 7.

It is also objected to these proceedings, that the award was not returned in time ; but this objection was not made in the Circuit Court, and it is too late now to make it. *Jacobs*v. Moffatt, 3 Blackf. 39*5.*

The last objection made is, that there should have been a *scire facias*on the award according to the statute. R. S. 1838, p. 71, sect. 7. This objection is answered by the fact, that the order of reference shows that the parties agreed that the award should be made the judgment of the Court.

*Per Curiam,.'*

— The judgment is affirmed with 2 *per cent.*damages and costs.
Space Launch System Lift Capabilities

Maximum Thrust 8.8 M lbs 8.9 M lbs 8.9 M lbs 9.5 M lbs

** Not including Orion/Service

Module volume

Trans-Lunar Injection 

(TLI) is a propulsive 

maneuver used to set a 

spacecraft on a trajectory 

that will cause it to arrive at the 

Moon. A spacecraft performs 

TLI to begin a lunar transfer 

from a low circular parking orbit 

around Earth. 

The numbers depicted here 

indicate the mass capability at 

the Trans-Lunar Injection point.

SLS Block 1 Crew SLS Block 1B Crew SLS Block 1B Cargo SLS Block 2 Crew SLS Block 2 Cargo

8.8 M lbs 9.5 M lbs

SLS Block 1 Cargo

Payload Volume 34,910 ft3 (988 m3 21,930 ft ) 3 (621.1 m3 10,100 ft ) 3 (286 m3)** 10,100 ft3 (286 m3 8,118 ft )** 3 (229.9 m3)

Payload to TLI/Moon > 27 t (59.5k lbs) > 27 t (59.5k lbs) 38 t (83.7k lbs) 42 t (92.5k lbs) > 43 t (94.7k lbs) > 46 t (101.4k lbs)

516 ft3 (14.6 m3)
www.nasa.gov/sls

Space Launch System Configurations

355 ft. 

RS-25 

Engines

365 ft.

Core Stage

Up to 313 ft.

Interstage

Evolved

Boosters

Solid

Rocket

Boosters

Exploration 

Upper Stage

325 ft.

Orion

Launch Abort System

Launch Vehicle

Stage Adapter

Interim Cryogenic

Propulsion Stage

8.4m Fairing

Long (Up to 90’)

Solid

Rocket

Boosters

Core Stage

Interstage

Exploration 

Upper Stage

8.4m Fairing

Short (Up to 63’)

Universal 

Stage Adapter

Core Stage

Interstage

Exploration 

Upper Stage

365 ft.

SLS Block 1 Cargo SLS Block 1B Crew SLS Block 1B Cargo SLS Block 2 Crew SLS Block 2 Cargo

RS-25 

Engines

SLS Block 1

5m Class Fairing

(up to 63’)

322 ft.

Universal 

Stage Adapter

Payload to TLI/Moon

> 27 t (59.5k lbs) > 27 t (59.5k lbs) 38 t (83.7k lbs) 42 t (92.5k lbs) > 43 t (94.7k lbs) > 46 t (101.4k lbs)
H. Res. 2 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 3, 2017. 

Resolved, That the Senate be informed that a quorum of 

the House of Representatives has assembled; that Paul D. 

Ryan, a Representative from the State of Wisconsin, has been 

elected Speaker; and that Karen L. Haas, a citizen of the 

State of Maryland, has been elected Clerk of the House of 

Representatives of the One Hundred Fifteenth Congress. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
Exhibit 10.35





                                                                December 2, 1999



Mr. Stephen C. Forsyth
321 Blackberry Drive
Stamford  CT 06903


                                    Re:     1999 MICP Award

Dear Mr. Forsyth:

     As you are aware,  the Executive  Compensation  Committee has awarded you a
special grant of nonqualified  stock options in lieu of a cash bonus award under
the Company's  Management  Incentive  Compensation  Plan for 1999. The Committee
recognizes  that its  decision to make your 1999 award in a form other than cash
could have the  unintended  effect of reducing  certain  payments or benefits to
which you may be entitled under the Executive Severance Agreement dated February
3, 1999 and the Executive Deferred  Compensation and Consulting  Agreement dated
October 1, 1994 between you and the Company (the "Agreements"). As a result, the
Committee has determined that, notwithstanding anything in the Agreements to the
contrary, the calculation of any payments or benefits to you, your beneficiaries
or legal  representatives under the Agreements shall be made as though your 1999
bonus award had been paid to you in cash in the amount of $115,500.

     The Company hereby declares this undertaking to be irrevocable and made for
the benefit of you, your beneficiaries and legal representatives.


                                            Hexcel Corporation




                                            By: ________________________________



Acknowledged


--------------------------
Executive


                                      169
<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM ARGENT
CAPITAL CORPORATION'S FORM 10-QSB OF SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN 
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         445,031
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,033,504
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,133,152
<PP&E>                                       1,143,774
<DEPRECIATION>                                 657,865
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,773,670
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,580,380
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,474
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,781,240
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,773,670
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,790,439
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,342,367
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               163,321
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             638,781
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,597,605)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (514,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,083,605)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,083,605)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.44)
        

</TABLE>
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-KSB of Jesup & Lamont,
Inc. (formerly Empire Financial Holding Company) (the "Company") for fiscal year
ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Donald A. Wojnowski Jr., Principal Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
                  U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

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


/s/ Donald A. Wojnowski Jr.                          March 28, 2008
---------------------------                          --------------
Donald A. Wojnowski Jr., President                        Date
(Principal Executive Officer)
EXHIBIT 10(e)(2)

                                AMENDMENT NO 1
                                      TO
                               1997 RESTATEMENT
                                      OF
                               XEROX CORPORATION
                  UNFUNDED RETIREMENT INCOME GUARANTEE PLAN



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

WHEREAS, Xerox Corporation (the "Company") has adopted the Unfunded Retirement
Income Guarantee Plan, which is presently set forth in the "1997 Restatement of
Xerox Corporation Unfunded Retirement Income Guarantee Plan," (the "Plan")

WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan,

NOW THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

1.  Section 1.2 is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:

    "SECTION 1.2.  AVERAGE MONTHLY COMPENSATION.  Shall be determined
    under Article 1 of the Funded Plan, without regard to the dollar
    limitation contained therein; and, notwithstanding the above, shall
    also include any compensation provided under the Xerox Corporation
    CEO Challenge Bonus Program."

The effective date of this amendment is as of the date hereof.  In all other
respects the Plan shall remain unchanged.

IN WITNESS WHEREOFF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed and
its corporate seal duly affixed this 17th day of March, 2000.

                                         XEROX CORPORATION



                                         BY: /s/ Patricia M. Nazemetz
                                             ---------------------------
                                                    Vice President
ATTEST:



/s/ Martin S. Wagner
-------------------------
   Assistant Secretary
#### Deborah L. ROBINSON; Edward G. Robinson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. GENESIS HEALTH VENTURES, Incorporated, d/b/a Manor Care, Incorporated, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-2441.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted July 14, 2003.

Decided Aug. 28, 2003.

*258C. William Michaels, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellants. J. Michael McGuire, Shawe *&*Rosenthal, L.L.P., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Deborah L. Robinson and Edward G. Robinson appeal from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Genesis Health Ventures, Inc., in their action alleging that Genesis Health Ventures terminated Deborah Robinson’s employment in violation of the public policy of Maryland. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the joint appendix, and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Genesis Health Venture’s motion for sanctions and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *Robinson v. Genesis Health Ventures, Inc.,*No. CA-02-875-H (D.Md. Nov. 15, 2002). 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.*
Order filed June 7, 2012

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 11

- 00292

- CR

____________ DUNG QUOC NGUYEN , Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 178th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Cou rt Cause No. 1226450



### O R D E R

The clerk’s record was filed June 1, 2012 . Our review has determined that a relevant item has been omitted from the clerk's record. See Tex. R. App . P. 34.5(c). The record does not contain appellant's motion for rehearing filed April 29, 2012

. The Harris County District Clerk is directed to file a supplemental clerk’s record on or before June 18, 2012 , containing appellant's motion for rehearing filed April 29, 2012

.If the omitted item is not part of the case file, the district clerk is directed to file a

supplemental clerk ’s record containing a certified statement that the omitted item is not a part of the case file.

PER CURIAM
#### Hough *v.*Beard.

To an action at common law on an award, the misconduct of the arbitrators is no defence.

An award where no suit is pending, and where there is no agreement to malee ^le submission a rule of Court, can be impeached only in chancery for misconduct of the arbitrators.

ERROR to the *Wayne*Circuit Court.

/. *S. Newman,*for the plaintiff.

*8. E. Perkins,*for the defendant.

Blackford, *J.*

Beard brought an action of debt against *Hough*on an award. It appears by the declaration, that this was .a submission' where no cause was pending, and that there was no agreement to make the submission a rule of Court under the statute. Plea, *nil debet.*The cause was submitted to the Court, and judgment rendered for the plaintiff.

On the trial, the defendant offered to prove, in order to impeach the award, certain misconduct of the arbitrators in making their award for the plaintiff without any proof, &c. The evidence was objected to, and the objection sustained.

We think the evidence objected to was correctly excluded. The law is settled, that to an action at common law on an award, the misconduct of the arbitrators is no defence. The awárd here sued on can be impeached only in chancery for misconduct of the arbitrators. 2 Story’s Eq. 676.

Perkins, J.,

having been concerned as counsel, was absent.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is affirmed with 5 *per cent.*damages and costs.
NASA Employees’ and Applicants’ Rights under the Architectural Barriers Act

NASA is intentional in its efforts to hire and retain employees who reflect the diverse world in which we 

live and serve. Hiring employees with diverse abilities strengthens our mission, creates innovation, and 

enhances employee engagement. Individuals with disabilities are an important component of our diverse 

workforce. NASA continually works to cultivate and maintain a work environment that is inclusive of and 

accessible to all.

The Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) was enacted by Congress to ensure access to Federal facilities for 

individuals with disabilities. The law requires that buildings or facilities that were designed, built, or 

altered with Federal dollars or leased by Federal agencies after August 12, 1968, be accessible to 

individuals with disabilities. Facilities that predate the law generally are not covered, but alterations or 

leases undertaken after the law took effect can trigger coverage.

The ABA is enforced through standards for accessible design. The standards indicate where access is 

required and provide detailed specifications for ramps, parking, doors, elevators, restrooms, assistive 

listening systems, fire alarms, signs, and other building elements. Facilities covered by the ABA must meet 

these standards.

For NASA, the ABA Accessibility Standards are implemented through the General Services 

Administration’s Federal Management Regulation, Part 102-76-Design and Construction, Subpart C.

Individuals who have concerns regarding accessibility at NASA-owned facilities should contact the 

appropriate Center Disability Program Manager or Facilities Manager.

Ames Research Center https://eo.arc.nasa.gov/

Armstrong Flight Research 

Center

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/about/Organizations/Huma

nRes/equalopp.html

Glenn Research Center https://www.grc.nasa.gov/odeo/

Goddard Space Flight Center https://eeo.gsfc.nasa.gov/sepm/individuals-disabilities

NASA Headquarters https://www.nasa.gov/centers/hq/eodm/reasonable_accommodations

Johnson Space Center https://www.nasa.gov/offices/oeod/

Kennedy Space Center https://odeo.ksc.nasa.gov/

Langley Research Center https://oeop.larc.nasa.gov/

Marshall Space Flight Center https://www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/diversity/about.html

NASA Shared Services 

Center https://www.nssc.nasa.gov/eo

Stennis Space Center https://www.nasa.gov/centers/stennis/about/organization/odeo/index

.html

NASA employees and applicants can also file a complaint directly with the U.S. Access Board.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.29









                               AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO
                              FLOWSERVE CORPORATION
                             1997 STOCK OPTION PLAN


Section 13(a) is hereby amended to add immediately after subsection (ii) the
following:


                "(iii) if such amendment would reprice, replace or otherwise
                effectively lower, through a form of option cancellation and
                regranting or otherwise, the exercise price of a previously
                granted option award."


The remainder of the Plan shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect.




                                  FLOWSERVE CORPORATION


                                  By: /s/ Ronald F. Shuff
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Ronald F. Shuff
                                     Vice President, Secretary & General Counsel
#### The State *v.*Williams.

*Monday, November*24.

A writ, issued in *A.*county against three persons, was returned “ not found ” as to two of them, and the return suggested of record. The other defendant pleaded in abatement, that all the defendants were, when the writ issued, and still were, resident in *B.*county. *Held,*that the plea was bad.

ERROR to the *Marion*Circuit Court.

Blackford, J.

— This was an action of debt commenced by the state against *William Williams,*Junior, *William Williams,*and *Jonathan Williams,*in the *Marion*Circuit Court. The suit is founded on the joint and several bond of the defendants. The declaration was filed on the 18th of *October,*1844; and, at the next term of the Court, the plaintiff suggested of record that *William Williams*and *William Williams,*Junior, had not been found as appeared by the return of the writ.

The defendant, *Jonathan Williams,*then pleaded in abatement, that neither he, nor either of the other defendants, resided in *Marion*county when the writ issued, nor had any of them ever resided in said county; and that they were, when the writ issued, and still were, residents of *Morgan*county, &c.

Demurrer to this plea, and judgment for the defendant.

This judgment is wrong. Upon the return of the writ executed on one of the defendants, and “not found” as to the others, the plaintiff having entered a suggestion of the return of “ not found,” could, by statute, proceed against the defendant alone on whom the writ was served. R. S. 1843, p. 675. And it was of no consequence where any of the defendants resided. The statute relied on by the defendant has no ap*494P^ca^on to ^is case- ^ auth01’izes a plaintiff to proceed against a defendant not resident in the county where suit is brought, provided process be executed on a defendant in the suit resident in that county. R. S. 1843, p. 674. But in the case before us, the plaintiff did not attempt to proceed against *William Williams*and *William Williams,*Junior, resident in *Morgan*county. On the contrary, he showed, by the suggestion he entered, that it was not his intention to do so. The demurrer should have been sustained.

*H.*and *H. Brown,*for the plaintiff.

*W. Quarles, J. II Bradley,*and *W. W. Wick,*for the defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

— The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
http://www.nasa.gov/astronauts/biographies

Summary:

Zena Cardman was selected by NASA as a member of the 2017 “Turtles” Astronaut Class. The Virginia native holds a 

Bachelor’s of Science in Biology and a Master’s of Science in Marine Sciences from the University of North Carolina, 

Chapel Hill. Her research focused primarily on geobiology and geochemical cycling in subsurface environments, from 

caves to deep sea sediments. Cardman’s experience includes multiple Antarctic expeditions.

Personal Data:

Born in Urbana, Illinois, Cardman considers Williamsburg, Virginia, to be home. Her parents, Helen and Larry 

Cardman, still live in Williamsburg. Cardman enjoys rock climbing, poetry, and power lifting.

Education:

Graduated from Bruton High School in Williamsburg, Virginia. Received a Bachelor’s of Science in Biology from the 

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Earned a Master’s of Science in Marine Sciences from the University of

North Carolina at Chapel Hill. PhD Candidate in Geosciences at time of selection.

Experience:

At the University of North Carolina, Cardman studied microbial systems in hydrocarbon seeps, hydrothermal vents, and 

the Arctic. During that time, she also worked with the Palmer Long-Term Ecological Research group in Antarctica, 

analyzing ecosystem changes as part of a multi-decadal study. Cardman has experience with NASA-supported research 

in British Columbia, the Canadian high Arctic, Idaho, and Hawaii, helping to develop operational architectures for 

science-driven planetary EVA. She briefly worked for the Sea Education Association, sailing as Assistant Engineer. At 

the time of her selection in June 2017, Cardman was a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellow at the 

Pennsylvania State University, where she studied nitrogen- and sulfur-cycling in chemosynthetic biofilms.

NASA Experience:

Cardman reported for duty in August 2017 and completed two years of training as an Astronaut Candidate. Prior to her 

career as an Astronaut, she worked with NASA-supported field tests, including Pavilion Lake and BASALT.

Awards/Honors:

NSF Graduate Research Fellowship (2012-2017); Pennsylvania Space Grant Consortium Fellowships (2015-2016); Royster 

Society Distinguished Graduate Fellowship (2012-2014); Irene F. Lee Chancellor’s Award for Most Outstanding Senior 

Woman (2010); North Carolina Space Grant Fellowships (2008-2010, 2013-2014); Chancellor’s Carolina Scholarship (2006-

2010).

Zena Cardman

NASA Astronaut 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center

Houston, Texas 77058

April 2022