alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.1 8-K Filed May 27, 2015 Korte Employment Agreement Ammendment






Exhibit 10.1
AMENDMENT 1
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
THIS AMENDMENT 1 (“Amendment 1”) TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) by and between LMI AEROSPACE, Inc., a Missouri corporation (“Corporation”), its successors, and assigns and DANIEL G. KORTE (“Employee”) is entered into this 18th day of May 2015. 
		
	1.
	The purpose of this Amendment is to revise certain terms and conditions of the Agreement to reflect Employee’s incentive compensation, as more specifically set forth below.  




		
	2.
	Section 5(B) iii- Section  5(B) iii of the Agreement shall be revised to read:




iii.  Long-Term Incentive Plan: Provided Corporation's financial targets are met, and Employee has achieved and is maintaining a satisfactory level of performance as determined by Corporation, and Employee is employed under the terms and conditions of this Agreement as of the date in which the "Long Term Incentive" is to be awarded, Corporation shall grant Employee Restricted Stock as part of Corporation's "Long Term Incentive Plan". Restricted Stock shall be issued and vest in accordance with the terms of the RSA.


As of the Effective Date of the Agreement, Employee will be provided a Long Term Incentive for Fiscal Year 2014 equal to eighty-five percent (85%) of Employee's prorated Base Salary as specified in Section 5 (A).


For Fiscal Years 2015 and 2016, Employee will be eligible for a Long Term Incentive grant targeted at one hundred percent (100%) of Base Salary with a total maximum grant value of one hundred ten percent (110%) of Base Salary. The number of shares to be granted will be determined by dividing the total amount eligible as Long Term Incentive by the average price per share on the date such stock is granted. A percentage of such Long Term Incentive shall be performance based and the remaining percentage shall be time-based, with such percentages to be determined by the Compensation Committee and approved by the Board of Directors.  The individual and organizational performance minimums, targets and maximums will be established annually by the Board of Directors, in consultation with Employee.  


For performance-based shares to vest, minimum result thresholds must be met. In no event shall vesting of the performance portion of the Long Term Incentive occur if minimum performance targets are not achieved. Any Long Term Incentive performance determination  shall be made not later than fifteen (15) days after the receipt by Corporation of its annual audited financial statements for the year in which the performance period ends. 


All other terms of the Agreement, as previously amended, remain unchanged.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed and delivered this Agreement as of the date first set forth above.


CORPORATION:        LMI AEROSPACE, INC.




By:  /s/  Judith W. Northup    
JUDITH W. NORTHUP
Chairperson, Compensation Committee
Board of Directors









LMI Aerospace, Inc.






EMPLOYEE:                 
/s/  Daniel G. Korte
DANIEL G. KORTE
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1858 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1858

   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Senate, 
  Offices of the Secretaries for the Majority and Minority for fiscal 
                               year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
           referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Senate, 
  Offices of the Secretaries for the Majority and Minority for fiscal 
                               year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR SENATE, OFFICES OF 
              THE SECRETARIES FOR THE MAJORITY AND MINORITY FOR FISCAL 
              YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Senate, Offices of the 
Secretaries for the Majority and Minority for fiscal year 2024 may not 
exceed $1,900,000.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RENARD TUCKER,

(AIS #173684)

Plaintiff,

:

:

:

:

:

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 15-0014-CG-N

:

OFFICER GLOVER, et al.

Defendants.

:

:

:

JUDGMENT

It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Plaintiff Renard Tucker

recover nothing and the claims made against Defendants Sherman Glover, Willie 

Harris, and Ramona Garrick are hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. 

DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of February, 2016.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00014-CG-N Document 55 Filed 02/11/16 Page 1 of 1
EX-10.3



 Exhibit 10.3 
  





 
 May 6, 2015 

Ms. Lysa A. Clemens 
 Dear Lysa, 

In connection with the business and organizational realignment of Career Education Corporation (the “Company”), I would like to confirm the
following: 
  

	 	1.	Effective May 6, 2015, your title will be changed to Senior Vice President, Transitional Operations and Chief Transformation Officer of the Company reporting directly to me. 


 

	 	2.	Your salary and other compensation will not change in connection with this change in title and responsibilities and you will continue to be entitled to the benefit programs available to the senior officers of the
Company, including but not limited to the executive severance program as it may be in effect from time to time. 

  

	 	3.	This is to confirm that the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors previously approved an extension to December 31, 2015 for you to conclude your move to the Chicago area and to be reimbursed by the
Company for your relocation costs incurred during your employment by the Company, in a total amount not to exceed $120,000 less amounts previously reimbursed and not to include any tax assistance. If the Company terminates your employment, other
than for misconduct, you will be not be required to reimburse the Company for these relocation costs. 

  

	 	4.	You are currently subject to certain non-compete and non-solicitation restrictive covenants which remain in effect for a period of time after a voluntary resignation by you from employment with the Company or for a
termination of your employment by the Company for cause. This is to confirm that in the event that the Company terminates your employment, other than for cause, prior to October 31, 2016, such non-compete restrictive covenants will not apply
and will not be included in any separation agreement with you that is required to entitle you to payments under the executive severance program. By your signature on this letter, you acknowledge and agree that any non-solicitation restrictions and
confidentiality obligations remain in full force and effect as set forth in any agreement or by virtue of your employment with the Company, and are not altered or amended by this letter. 


 

	 	5.	This letter does not contain a guarantee of employment at Career Education Corporation. Your employment is at-will and may be terminated at the will of either you or Career Education Corporation. 


Please sign one copy of this Letter indicating your agreement of the terms 







 Sincerely, 
 /s/
Ronald D. McCray 
 Ronald D. McCray 
 Interim
President & Chief Executive Officer 
 Career Education Corporation 

Accepted and Agreed to: 
  

					
	 /s/ Lysa A. Clemens
	 		 	 5-6-15

	Lysa A. Clemens	 		 	Date
Exhibit 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES



|                                           |  |                       
|------------------------------------------ |  | ----------------------
|Name                                       |  | State of Incorporation
|Concept Pharmaceuticals, LLC               |  | Alabama               
|SeniorScript, LLC                          |  | Alabama               
|R/XxPharmacy Solutions,
Inc.               |  | Arizona               
|First Rx Specialty and Mail Services, LLC. |  | Delaware              
|HealthExtras Benefits Administrator, Inc.  |  | Delaware              
|HospiScript Services, LLC                  |  | Delaware              
|U.S. Scripts, Inc.                         |  | Delaware              
|Managed Healthcare Systems, Inc.           |  | Florida               
|APS Benefits Corporation.                  |  | Maryland              
|Catalyst Consultants                       |  | Nevada                
|Catalyst Rx                                |  | Nevada                
|Catalyst Rx Government Services, Inc.      |  | Nevada                
|Catalyst Rx Rebate Management, Inc.        |  | Nevada                
|Catalyst PRx, LLC                          |  | Nevada                
|Catalyst PRx Government Services, LLC      |  | Nevada                
|Catalyst Rx IPA, Inc.                      |  | New York              
|Immediate Pharmaceutical Services, Inc.    |  | Ohio
12055.

#### BLANCHARD, HUMBER & CO, *v.*HAGAN GAS ENGINE & MANUFACTURING CO.

In a claim case wliere tlie evidence clearly showed that at the date of the levy of the execution the defendant in fi. fa. had both title to and possession of the property levied on it was proper for the court to direct a verdict for the plaintiff in fi. fa.

Decided March 16, 1921.

Levy and claim; from Marion superior court — Judge Hutcheson presiding. October 26, 1920.

This is a claim case. The evidence in substance is as follows : The defendant in fi. fa. bought certain personal property from the Woodruff Machinery Manufacturing Company, giving therefor promissory notes containing a retention of title to the personalty until paid for, which were duly recorded. He paid the notes and an entry of payment was duly made on the record, and possession of the property was delivered to him by the payee. The execution against him was obtained on April 25, 1916, and on July 8, 1919, was levied on the personalty in question, which was then in his possession. On the part of the claimants it was testified that the property in question was their property at the date of the levy. The claim was based on the following facts: The claimants lent to the defendant in fi. fa. the money to pay his notes for the property, and he paid the notes and took possession of the property. Subsequently, on August 4, 1919, a transfer of the notes, which had previously been marked paid and delivered to the defendant in fi. fa., *539was made by the Woodruff Machinery Manufacturing Company to the claimants, at the request of the defendant in fi. fa. while the property was in the possession of the levying officer. The defendant in fi. fa. testified that he had never repaid to the claimants the money borrowed to pay the notes. The court, at the conclusion of the evidence, directed a verdict for the plaintiff in fi. fa., and the claimants excepted.

*T. B. Rainey, George C.- Palmer,*for plaintiffs in error.

W. *B. Short, W. D. Crawford,*contra.

Hill, J.

(After stating the foregoing facts.)

The direction of a verdict for the plaintiff in fi. fa. was demanded. No other legal verdict could have been rendered. The property levied on was in the possession of the defendant in fi. fa. at the time of the levy. The title thereto became his when he paid the title-retention notes. The fact that the claimants had loaned to the defendant in fi. fa. the money with which to pay these notes did not give the claimants any title to tlie property as against the lien of plaintiff’s fi. fa., in the absence of a written transfer of the notes. *Swann Davis Co.*v. *Stanton,*7 *Ga. App.*668 (67 S. E. 888); *Burch*v. *Pedigo,*113 *Ga.*1157 (39 S. E. 493, 54 L. R. A. 808). The testimony of the claimants that the property levied upon at the date of the levy was their property was merely a conclusion of the witness and without any probative value, the facts clearly showing that at that time the title was in the defendant in fi. fa., the title-retention notes having been paid by him and delivered up to him by the payee.'

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenlcins, P. J., and Stephens-, J., concur.*
11075.

#### Roberson *v.*The State.

Decided March 3, 1920.

Indictment for burglary; from Fulton superior court — Judge Humphreys. September 27, 1919.

*Albert Kemper,*for plaintiff in error.

*John A. Boykin, solicitor-general, E. A. Stephens,*contra.

Luke, J.

“To sustain a conviction upon tiie testimony of an accomplice, there must be corroborating circumstances which, in themselves and independently of the testimony of the accomplice, directly connect the defendant with the crime, or lead to the inference that he is guilty.” The evidence in this case, which was given by an accomplice, is without corroboration directly connecting the defendant with the crime or leading to the inference that he is guilty. See *Stokes*v. *State,*19 *Ga. App.*235 (915 E. 271), and cit. There being no other evidence of guilt, it was error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment reversed:*

*Broyles,*C. *J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FRANK HALE, III, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-0222-CG-N

)

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

)

)

)

Defendant. )

JUDGMENT

In accordance with the Order entered this date, it is ORDERED, 

ADJUDGED, and DECREED that JUDGMENT is entered in favor of the 

Defendant Commissioner and against Plaintiff Hale.

DONE and ORDERED this 26th day of May, 2015.

/s/ Callie V. S. Granade

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00222-CG-N Document 21 Filed 05/26/15 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-10824

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ANTHONY DEWAYNE GALLOWAY,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:13-CR-504-1

Before DAVIS, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Anthony Dewayne 

Galloway has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Galloway has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 16, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-10824 Document: 00513080086 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/16/2015
No. 14-10824

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 14-10824 Document: 00513080086 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/16/2015
Denied; and Opinion Filed June 3, 2015.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-15-00634-CV

IN RE MARTINIANO FLORES, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 219th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 219-80171-06

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Lang, Fillmore, and Evans

Opinion by Justice Evans

Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus requesting that the Court order the trial 

court to rule on his September 2011 and May 2014 motions for post-conviction forensic DNA 

testing and for appointment of counsel in connection with his motion for forensic DNA testing. 

The mandamus record reveals that the trial court signed an order dated November 22, 2011 in 

which it concluded “no biological evidence secured in relation to the offense currently exists.” 

The trial court further concluded, “[b]ecause no biological evidence secured in relation to the 

offense currently exists, there are not reasonable grounds for the filing of a post-conviction DNA 

motion.” For those reasons, the trial court denied the motion for post-conviction DNA testing 

and the motion for appointment of counsel. Relator did not appeal this order.

The mandamus record does not include an order with regard to relator’s May 9, 2014 

motions. The trial court was not required, however, to rule on this second motion when it had 

previously concluded that no biological material exists to be tested. Absent exceptional 
–2–

circumstances, which the mandamus record does not reflect are present in this case, a trial court 

has no ministerial duty to rule repeatedly on substantively identical motions seeking the same 

relief. See In re Birdwell, 393 S.W.3d 886, 893 (Tex. App.—Waco 2012, no pet.) (denying 

mandamus compelling ruling on tenth motion for forensic DNA testing); see also In re Cloud, 

No. 05-15-00223-CV, 2015 WL 1021127, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 6, 2015, orig. 

proceeding) (trial court no longer required to consider successive motions for forensic DNA 

testing after Court three times affirmed trial court’s denial of motions for forensic DNA 

testing); In re Sims, No. 05-13-00049-CV, 2013 WL 1273912, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas Mar. 

15, 2013, orig. proceeding) (“Relator is not entitled to a writ of mandamus requiring the trial 

court to repeatedly rule on the same motion.”); In re Durden, No. 14-12-00143-CR, 2012 WL 

590815, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Feb. 23, 2012, orig. proceeding) (“[N]o ruling 

is required in response to a subsequent filing of a motion for DNA testing if there has already 

been a full adjudication in connection with a prior motion for DNA testing, absent exceptional 

circumstances.”).

To establish a right to mandamus relief in a criminal case, the relator must show that the 

trial court violated a ministerial duty and there is no adequate remedy at law. In re State ex rel. 

Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). Relator has not 

satisfied these requirements. We deny the petition.

150634F.P05 /David Evans/

DAVID EVANS

JUSTICE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

COREY EUGENE BENTON, : 

Plaintiff, :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 14-00544-WS-B 

STATE OF ALABAMA, et al., :

Defendants. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of all portions of this file 

deemed relevant to the issue raised, and there having been no objections 

filed, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court. It 

is ORDERED that this action be and is hereby DISMISSED without prejudice

for failure to prosecute and to obey the Court’s Order.

 DONE this 24th day of April, 2015.

s/WILLIAM H. STEELE

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00544-WS-B Document 5 Filed 04/24/15 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2072 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2072

  To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Executive 
   Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control Policy, 
 Federal Drug Control Programs, High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas 
                     Program for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
       referred to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Executive 
   Office of the President, Office of National Drug Control Policy, 
 Federal Drug Control Programs, High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas 
                     Program for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF 
              THE PRESIDENT, OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY, 
              FEDERAL DRUG CONTROL PROGRAMS, HIGH INTENSITY DRUG 
              TRAFFICKING AREAS PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Executive Office of the 
President, Office of National Drug Control Policy, Federal Drug Control 
Programs, High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program for fiscal year 
2024 may not exceed $280,000,000.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000316736                
<NAME>                        FieldPoint Petroleum Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         85,735
<SECURITIES>                                   2,880
<RECEIVABLES>                                  134,657
<ALLOWANCES>                                   20,000
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               278,007
<PP&E>                                         1,579,648
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (559,258)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,355,212
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          458,142
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       51,667
<OTHER-SE>                                     457,943
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,355,212
<SALES>                                        98,515
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               131,658
<CGS>                                          28,359
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  141,020
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             18,344
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (27,549)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   4,200
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (23,349)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (23,349)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.01)
        


</TABLE>