alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.46

                        AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
                                     BETWEEN
                              DBS INDUSTRIES, INC.
                                       AND
                                FRED W. THOMPSON

         Pursuant to the Employment Agreement (the "Agreement") dated April 18,
1996, by and between DBS Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company") and Fred W. Thompson (the "Employee") collectively the "parties", the
terms and conditions are hereby amended as follows:

Article I, Section 1.1. EMPLOYMENT AND TERM:  The Agreement is for a term of
five years effective July 1, 1999.

Article III, Section 3.1. ANNUAL BASE SALARY: The Company shall pay Employee
salary for the services to be rendered by him during the term of the Agreement
at the rate of two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) annually (prorated
for any portion of a year).

Article III, Section 3.3. STOCK OPTIONS: Employee shall be granted stock options
to purchase an additional one million (1,000,000) shares of DBSI's common stock
at a discounted exercise price of $1.3496 per share, as approved by the Board of
Directors on September 1, 1999. The options are subject to vesting; 250,000 of
which will vest immediately on September 1, 1999, and the remainder shall vest
as follows:

<TABLE>

<S>                                 <C>
January 1, 2000                     250,000
January 1, 2001                     250,000
January 1, 2002                     250,000

</TABLE>

The Stock Options are subject to (a) the terms and conditions set forth herein
and in the Stock Option Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A, and (b)
Employee's execution of the Stock Option Agreement and all other documents
customarily required by the Company to effect the grant of stock options.

Article IV, Section 4.3. TERMINATION WITHOUT CAUSE: If Employee is terminated
without cause, the Employee shall continue to be paid an amount equal to his
then monthly base salary for the duration of his employment term as stated in
Article I, Section 1.1. above. If Employee is terminated without cause, he shall
be entitled to full vesting of all options granted by this Amendment.


<PAGE>

All other terms and conditions of the Employment Agreement shall remain as found
in the original Agreement dated April 18, 1996, except for revisions approved by
Board action.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed and delivered this
Agreement as of this 1st day of September, 1999.

EMPLOYER:                                DBS INDUSTRIES, INC.

                                    BY:
                                         ---------------------------
                                         MICHAEL T. SCHIEBER, SECRETARY

EMPLOYEE:                           BY:
                                         ---------------------------
                                         FRED W. THOMPSON
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2811 

To rescind all unobligated funds made available for capital assistance for 

high-speed rail corridors under the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 5, 2011 

Mr. AUSTIN SCOTT of Georgia introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Appropriations 

A BILL 

To rescind all unobligated funds made available for capital 

assistance for high-speed rail corridors under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. 

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

3 SECTION 1. HIGH-SPEED RAIL FUNDING RESCISSION. 

4 All funds made available for capital assistance for 

5 high-speed rail corridors under the American Recovery 

6 and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–5; 123 

7 Stat. 208) that remain unobligated are hereby rescinded. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK1DXX6B1PROD with BILLS
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of E

. K ., a child. * From the 29 th District Court

of Palo Pinto County,

Trial Court No. C50369

.

No. 11

- 2 3

- 00 1 79

- C V * January 4 , 20 2 4

* Memorandum Opinion by Williams , J.

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter , J. , and W illiams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that th ere is no

error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, we

affirm the order of the trial court.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4325-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Nebraska (FEMA-4325-DR), dated August 1, 2017, and related determinations.

# DATES:

The amendment was issued on September 8, 2017.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Michael R. Scott, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

This action terminates the appointment of Dolph A. Diemont as Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2017-20454 Filed 9-22-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-40054

Summary Calendar

 

ISAAC FRANKLIN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

VICTOR RODRIGUEZ, Chairman, Board of Pardons and Parole;

GERALD GARRETT, Board Member; BRENDOLYN ROGERS GARDNER,

Board Member; W. G. “BILLY” WALKER, Board Member,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:99-CV-83

- - - - - - - - - -

October 1, 2001

Before JOLLY, JONES and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Isaac Franklin, Texas prisoner #557634, appeals the district

court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit with prejudice

and the district court’s denial of his postjudgment motion

seeking withdrawal of the court’s collection order regarding the

filing fee for Franklin’s lawsuit. As an initial matter,

however, this court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction,

on its own motion, if necessary. See Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d

659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). FED R. APP. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i) provides
No. 01-40054

-2-

that, if a timely motion is made pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P.

59(e), a notice of appeal filed after entry of the judgment, but

before disposition of the motion, is ineffective until the entry

of the order disposing of the motion. With the exception of a

motion requesting correction of a clerical error, all

postjudgment motions that call into question the correctness of

the judgment and which are filed within 10 days of the judgment's

entry are treated as Rule 59(e) motions, regardless the label

applied to the motion. See Mangieri v. Clifton, 29 F.3d 1012,

1015 n.5 (5th Cir. 1994); Harcon Barge Co. v. D & G Boat Rentals,

Inc., 784 F.2d 665, 668-69 (5th Cir. 1986)(en banc).

Within 10 days after entry of the district court’s final

judgment, Franklin filed a request for modification of the

district court’s dismissal. Such request should be treated as a

Rule 59(e) motion because it was filed within ten days of entry

of the judgment, and it called into question the correctness of

the judgment. Because the district court has not ruled on such

motion, Franklin’s notice of appeal is not yet effective. See 

FED R. APP. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(i).

The case is REMANDED and the clerk of this court is ordered

to return the record to the district court for it to rule on the

Rule 59(e) motion as expeditiously as possible. See Burt v.

Ware, 14 F.3d 256, 260-61 (5th Cir. 1994). Should the district

court deny the motion, Franklin’s notice of appeal will become

effective. 

 REMANDED.
Exhibit 10-5-2






Exhibit
10-5-2



GANNETT CO., INC.




TRANSITIONAL COMPENSATION PLAN




As amended and restated August 7, 2007




Amendment No. 2 




Gannett Co., Inc. hereby makes the following clarifying amendment to the Gannett Co., Inc.
Transitional Compensation Plan, as amended and restated August 7, 2007, (the “Plan”), as follows:



1. Section 6(g) of the Plan is amended by adding the following new sentence to the end
thereof:




In all instances, the Date of Termination shall mean the date of the Participant’s
separation from service within the meaning of Section 409A.



2. Section 21 of the Plan is amended by adding the following new sentence to the end thereof:




For purposes of this Plan, any reference to “termination of employment” or similar term
shall mean a “separation from service” within the meaning of Section 409A, and all in-kind
benefits and reimbursements provided under the Plan shall be paid in accordance with the
requirements of Treasury Regulation Section 1.409A-3(i)(iv).



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Gannett Co., Inc. has caused this Amendment to be executed by its duly
authorized officer as of December 22, 2010.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	

GANNETT CO., INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Roxanne V. Horning
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Roxanne V. Horning 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Senior Vice President/Human Resources
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2628 

To prohibit the awarding of Federal grants and contracts to 4-year institutions of higher education that fail to offer academic credit for the 

successful completion of courses offered by a Senior Reserve Officers’ 

Training Corps program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 22, 2011 

Mr. MILLER of Florida (for himself, Mr. TURNER, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. 

GIBSON, Mr. LOBIONDO, Mr. GRIMM, Mr. WITTMAN, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. 

MCKINLEY, Mr. GRIFFIN of Arkansas, Mrs. HARTZLER, Mr. FORBES, 

Mr. WOMACK, and Mr. RIGELL) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To prohibit the awarding of Federal grants and contracts 

to 4-year institutions of higher education that fail to 

offer academic credit for the successful completion of 

courses offered by a Senior Reserve Officers’ Training 

Corps program. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Eliminating Disincen5 tives to ROTC Participation Act’’. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2628 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF FEDERAL GRANTS AND CON2 TRACTS. 

3 (a) GRANT AND CONTRACT ELIGIBILITY.—Notwith4 standing any other provision of law, no 4-year institution 

5 of higher education (as defined in section 102 of the High6 er Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002)) shall be eligi7 ble to be awarded, or to continue to receive funds for per8 formance under, a Federal grant or contract, unless such 

9 institution provides a certification described in subsection 

10 (b) to the head of the Federal agency or department ad11 ministering such grant or contract— 

12 (1) for the purpose of being eligible to be 

13 awarded a grant or contract, at the time such insti14 tution submits an application for such grant or con15 tract; or 

16 (2) for the purpose of being eligible to continue 

17 to receive funds for performance under a grant or 

18 contract, not later than January 31, 2012. 

19 (b) CERTIFICATION.—To comply with subsection (a), 

20 an institution shall certify that it offers not fewer than 

21 6 credit hours to students enrolled in the institution for 

22 the successful completion of courses offered by a Senior 

23 Reserve Officers’ Training Corps program established 

24 under section 2102 of title 10, United States Code, with25 out regard to whether the courses were completed at the 

26 institution. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2628 IH

1 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This section shall— 

2 (1) take effect on October 1, 2011; and 

3 (2) apply to an institution of higher education’s 

4 eligibility— 

5 (A) to be awarded a grant or contract on 

6 or after October 1, 2011; and 

7 (B) to continue to receive funds for per8 formance under a grant or contract awarded 

9 before October 1, 2011. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,
Borivoje Vukadinovic, Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of
Retrospettiva, Inc. (the Company) certify that:

1.       
          I have reviewed the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company;

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

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

Date:  May 13, 2008

/s/ Borivoje VukadinovicBorivoje Vukadinovic Principal
Executive Officer

/s/ Borivoje VukadinovicBorivoje Vukadinovic Principal
Financial Officer

---
#### In the Matter of: SELKIRK DEVELOPMENT, LLC, Debtor. Selkirk Development, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William J. Griffin; Brenda G. Griffin, Defendants-Appellants. In the Matter of: Selkirk Development, LLC, Debtor. William J. Griffin; Brenda G. Griffin, Appellants, v. Selkirk Development, LLC, Appellee.

Nos. 00-35982, 01-35017.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted July 15, 2010.

Filed July 22, 2010.

Jon R. Binney, Binney Law Firm, P.C., Missoula, MT, for Debtor, Plaintiff-Appel-lee.

Dustin Douglass Deissner, Van Camp & Deissner, Spokane, WA, for Defendants-Appellants. '

Before: REINHARDT, GRABER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Debtor Selkirk Development, L.L.C., a real estate company, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Unclear about the ownership rights to two properties, Debtor initiated an adversary proceeding against the Grif*597fins to quiet title. The bankruptcy court quieted title in Debtor and then, in a separate order, confirmed the bankruptcy plan. The Griffins timely appealed both orders to the district court, which affirmed, and in turn timely appealed both orders to this court.

In case No. 01-35017, we dismiss for failure to prosecute the appeal. The Griffins’ briefing contains no argument pertaining to confirmation of the plan.

In case No. 00-35982, we review de novo the bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law and review for clear error its factual findings. *USAA Fed. Sav. Bank v. Thacker (In re Taylor),*599 F.3d 880, 887 (9th Cir.2010). We affirm.

The bankruptcy court permissibly told the parties that it would make its factual findings on the existing record if the parties failed to meet the court’s second deadline for submitting information. The Griffins failed to meet that deadline and failed to ask for more time within which to do so, and they did not submit their accountant’s deposition to the court. Considering the record then before it, the court held that the Griffins had been paid in full under each of their agreements with Selkirk and its predecessors for the purchase and sale of the real property in question. Even if the court made findings that are imperfect, as the Griffins argue, a failure to comply with the specificity requirement of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) (adopted pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 7052) does not automatically require reversal. *FTC v. Enforma Natural Prods., Inc.,*362 F.3d 1204, 1212 (9th Cir.2004). We understand the bankruptcy court simply to have held that the Griffins failed to meet them burden to establish that any amount remained owing after some payments, reflected in the record, had been made. That being so, any Rule 52(a) error does not require reversal.

Finally, the judgment of the bankruptcy court, quieting title in Debtor, was not a sanction. Instead, the court closed the record pursuant to its earlier case-management orders and then made a decision on the merits, grounded on the existing record.

In No. 01-35017, appeal DISMISSED.

In No. 00-35982, AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

THERESA RUEBBLING, Individually a nd

a s Heir o f VICTORIA RANGEL, Deceased,

Appellant,

v.

FOREMOST COUNTY MUTUAL

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 23

- 00054

- CV

Appeal from

421st Judicial District Court

of Caldwell County, Texas

(TC# 21

- O

- 421)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. We further order that Appellee

recover from Appellant all costs of appeal for which let execution issue . This decision shall be

certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 20 24

.

LISA J. SOTO, Justice

Before Palafox, and Soto, J J., and Marion, C.J. (Ret.)

Marion, C.J. (Ret.) , s itting by a ssignment

Palafox, J., dissenting
CERTIFICATIONS

I, Richard Rubin, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report of American Biogenetic Sciences,Inc.;

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the  issuer as of, and for, theperiods presented in this report;

4. The  issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as 4efined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the  issuer and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the  issuer, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during theperiod in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or causedsuch internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the  issuer's disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the  issuer's internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the  issuer's most recentfiscal quarter (the  issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the  issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

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

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the  issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether r not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the  issuer's internal control overfinancial reporting.

Date: April 13, 2011

/s/ Richard RubinCEO, CFO and Chairman
##### 



EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS CONSENT

To the Partners of
TEPPCO Partners, L.P.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
33-81976) and (No. 333-86650) on Form S-3 and the registration statement (No.
333-82892) on Form S-8 of TEPPCO Partners, L.P. of our report dated January 17,
2002, except as to Note 15, which is as of May 30, 2002, with respect to the
consolidated balance sheets of TEPPCO Partners, L.P. as of December 31, 2001 and
2000 and the related consolidated statements of income, partners capital and
cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,
2001, which report appears in the December 31, 2001 annual report on Form 10-K/A
of TEPPCO Partners, L.P. dated June 3, 2002.

Our report on the consolidated financial statements refers to a change in the
method of accounting for derivative financial instruments and hedging activities
and the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No.
141,Business Combinations and certain provisions of SFAS No. 142,Goodwill and
Other Intangible Assets in 2001.

KPMG LLP

Houston, Texas
June 3, 2002