alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amendment No. 1 to Foundry Agreement



  
 Exhibit 10.4(a)

 AMENDMENT No. 1 
 to 
 Foundry Agreement 

between 

Texas Instruments Incorporated and Spansion LLC and Nihon Spansion Limited 

This Amendment No. 1 (“Amendment No. 1”) to the Foundry Agreement is entered into this 15th day of September 2010, (the “Effective Date”) by and
between Spansion LLC, having its principal place of business at 915 DeGuigne Drive, Sunnyvale, California 94088-3453, U.S.A. (“Spansion”), Nihon Spansion Limited, having its principal place of business at 1-14, Nishin-cho, Kawasaki-shi,
Kawasaki-ku, Kanagawa 210-0024, Japan (“Spansion Nihon), and Texas Instruments Incorporated, having its principal place of business at 12500 TI Boulevard, Dallas, Texas 75266, U.S (“TI”). Spansion, Spansion Nihon, and TI are
collectively referred to as “Parties” to this Amendment and, individually, as a “Party” to this Amendment. 

Whereas, the Parties entered into a Foundry Agreement with an Effective Date of August 31, 2010 (“Original Agreement”), 

Whereas, the Parties desire to make the confidentiality provisions of the Original Agreement applicable to certain additional entities, and

 Whereas, the Parties agree to make further modifications to the provisions of the Original Agreement as set forth below. 

Now therefore, the parties hereby agree as follows: 
  

	 	I.	The provisions of Section 10 of the Original Agreement (Confidential Information) will apply to any Spansion subsidiaries and any TI subsidiaries. This
modification will retroactively apply to the Effective Date of the Original Agreement. 

  

	 	II.	For clarification, the Parties acknowledge that the quantities set forth in the table in Exhibit D are intended to be quantities in the thousands (one unit =
1000 wafers) 

 (remainder of page intentionally left blank) 

  
 1 








  
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto
have caused this Agreement to be duly signed and executed. 
  

							
	TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED	  		  	SPANSION LLC	  	
				
	 /s/ Kevin Ritchie
 Authorized Signature
	  		  	 /s/ Randy W. Furr
 Authorized Signature
	  	
				
	 Kevin Ritchie
 Name
	  		  	 Randy W. Furr
 Name
	  	
				
	 SVP
 Title
	  		  	 EVP and CFO
 Title
	  	
				
	 9/17/2010
 Date
	  		  	 9/15/2010
 Date
	  	
				
	NIHON SPANSION LIMITED	  		  		  	
				
	 /s/ Randy W. Furr
 Authorized Signature
	  		  		  	
				
	 Randy W. Furr
 Name
	  		  		  	
				
	 Director
 Title
	  		  		  	
				
	 9/15/2010
 Date
	  		  		  	


  
 2
### §5022. Payments; adjustments; advances or reimbursement; installments; conditions

Payments under this subchapter pursuant to a grant or contract may be made (after necessary adjustment, in the case of grants, on account of previously made overpayments or underpayments) in advance or by way of reimbursement, in such installments and on such conditions, as the Director may determine.

(Pub. L. 93–113, title II, §222, Oct. 1, 1973, 87 Stat. 403.)
#### § 72.11 Responsibility if a will intended to operate in the United States exists.

The consular officer immediately should forward any will that is intended to operate in the United States and that is among the effects taken into possession to the person or persons designated as executor(s). When the executor(s) cannot be located, the consular officer should send the will to the appropriate court in the State of the decedent's domicile. Until the consular officer knows that a legal representative is present in the foreign country and has qualified or made arrangements to take charge of the personal estate, the consular officer should act as provisional conservator in accordance with § 72.8.
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

Case no. C 08-04148 WHA 

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JOHN L. BURRIS (SBN# 69888) 

ADANTE D. POINTER (SBN 236229) 

LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS 

Airport Corporate Centre 

7677 Oakport Street, Suite 1120 

Oakland, California 94621 

Telephone: (510) 839-5200 

Facsimile: (510) 839-3882 

Email: John.Burris@johnburrislaw.com 

JAMES B. CHANIN (SBN# 76043) 

JULIE M. HOUK (SBN# 114968) 

LAW OFFICES OF JAMES B. CHANIN 

3050 Shattuck Avenue 

Berkeley, California 94705 

Telephone: (510) 848-4752, Ext. 2 

Facsimile: (510) 848-5819 

Email: jbcofc@aol.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ESTATE OF “JODY” MACK MILLER 

WOODFOX, et al, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

CITY OF OAKLAND; et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. C08-04148 WHA

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION 

AND (PROPOSED) ORDER TO 

FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

MOTION 

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 

 Pursuant to Local Rules 7-11 and 79-5, Plaintiffs hereby move the Court for an Order to file 

under seal Plaintiffs’ Petitions and (Proposed) Orders Authorizing Release of Funds from Blocked 

Case 3:08-cv-04148-WHA Document 84 Filed 07/06/10 Page 1 of 2
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL

Case no. C 08-04148 WHA 

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Account, containing confidential information pertaining to said Minor Plaintiffs in the above-entitled 

action. 

Dated: June 25, 2010 Respectfully submitted, 

 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN L. BURRIS 

 /s/ John L. Burris 

 John L. Burris, Esq. 

 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

 

(PROPOSED) ORDER 

 THE PLAINTIFFS’ PETITIONS AND (PROPOSED) ORDERS AUTHORIZING 

RELEASE OF FUNDS FROM BLOCKED ACCOUNT pertaining to the above-entitled action are 

herewith ordered filed under seal pursuant to Local Rule 79-5. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 

Honorable William H. Alsup 

 United States District Court Judge 

July 6, 2010.

U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IT IS SO ORDERED

Judge William Alsup

Case 3:08-cv-04148-WHA Document 84 Filed 07/06/10 Page 2 of 2
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2570 

To amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 

1991 to provide for the collection of data on the availability of credit 

for women-owned business. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 24, 2005 

Mr. ANDREWS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 to provide for the collection of 

data on the availability of credit for women-owned business. 

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 ‘‘Credit Availability for 

5 Women-Owned Businesses Act of 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. COLLECTION OF DATA. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsections (a) and (b) of section 

8 122 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation Im-
2 

•HR 2570 IH 

1 provement Act of 1991 (12 U.S.C. 1817 nt.) are each 

2 amended by inserting ‘‘, women-owned businesses,’’ after 

3 ‘‘small businesses’’. 

4 (b) WOMEN-OWNED BUSINESSES DEFINED.—Sec5 tion 122 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation 

6 Improvement Act of 1991 (12 U.S.C. 1817 nt.) is amend7 ed by adding at the end the following new subsection: 

8 ‘‘(d) WOMEN-OWNED BUSINESS DEFINED.—The 

9 term ‘women-owned business’ means any business— 

10 ‘‘(1) more than 50 percent of the outstanding 

11 shares of which are held by 1 or more women; and 

12 ‘‘(2) a majority of the directors on the board of 

13 directors of which are women.’’. 

14 (c) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

15 Paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 122(c) of the Federal 

16 Deposit Insurance Corporation Improvement Act of 1991 

17 (12 U.S.C. 1817 nt.) are each amended by inserting ‘‘and 

18 women-owned businesses’’ before the period at the end of 

19 each such paragraph. 

Æ
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-1-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS

J:\1427\sf0003\Pld\P-stip-stay.wpd

DALE L. ALLEN, JR., # 145279

MARK F. HAZELWOOD, # 136521

DIRK D. LARSEN, # 246028

LOW, BALL & LYNCH

505 Montgomery Street, 7th Floor

San Francisco, California 94111-2584

Telephone (415) 981-6630

Facsimile (415) 982-1634

Attorneys for Defendants

CITY OF CLEARLAKE, ALLAN McLAIN, 

LEE LAMBERT, JANINE LOWE, SCOTT SPIVEY, 

CURT GIAMBRUNO, CHUCK LEONARD, 

JUDY THEIN, ROY SIMONS, TODD MILLER, 

CARL MILLER, RODD JOSEPH, AND BRETT RHODES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRANT MEYER AND MARILYN MEYER,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

CITY OF CLEARLAKE, ALLAN McLAIN, LEE

LAMBERT, JANINE LOWE, SCOTT SPIVEY,

CURT GIAMBRUNO, CHUCK LEONARD, JUDY

THEIN, ROY SIMONS, TODD MILLER, CARL

MILLER, JOSEPH ROOD, SARGENT RHODES,

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC, AND ALL

AMERICAN TOWING, 

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:08-cv-04372 MEJ

STIPULATION AND

[PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY

ALL PROCEEDINGS

WHEREAS, the parties to the above-captioned action have reached an agreement in principle for

full and final settlement of the action, which agreement needs to be reduced to writing; and

WHEREAS, the terms of said agreement are to be recorded in a consent decree that the parties

are presently preparing;

The parties, by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate that all proceedings in the

action, including but not limited to defendants’ motion for summary judgment and the trial, be stayed

pending the execution of said consent decree and the full performance of the terms thereof, and the

Case 3:08-cv-04372-MEJ Document 59 Filed 03/26/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

-2-

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS

J:\1427\sf0003\Pld\P-stip-stay.wpd

parties hereby request that the Court enter an order pursuant to their stipulation.

SO STIPULATED.

Dated: March 25, 2010.

LOW, BALL & LYNCH

 By s/ Dirk D. Larsen 

DALE L. ALLEN, JR.

MARK F. HAZELWOOD

DIRK D. LARSEN

Attorneys for Defendants

CITY OF CLEARLAKE, ALLAN McLAIN, 

LEE LAMBERT, JANINE LOWE, SCOTT

SPIVEY, CURT GIAMBRUNO, CHUCK

LEONARD, JUDY THEIN, ROY SIMONS, TODD

MILLER, CARL MILLER, RODD JOSEPH, AND

BRETT RHODES

Dated: March 25, 2010.

 By s/ Frear Stephen Schmid 

FREAR STEPHEN SCHMID

Attorney for Plaintiffs

GRANT MEYER AND MARILYN MEYER

[PROPOSED] ORDER

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties herein, it is HEREBY ORDERED that all proceedings in

the above-captioned action are stayed pending the execution of the consent decree to be prepared by the

parties and the full performance of the terms thereof.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: .

 

HON. MARIA-ELENA JAMES

U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

That all dates are hereby vacated and all proceedings are stayed. March 26, 2010

Case 3:08-cv-04372-MEJ Document 59 Filed 03/26/10 Page 2 of 2
§ 96.72 Referral of complaints to the Secretary and other authorities. ( a ) An accrediting entity must report promptly to the Secretary any substantiated complaint that: ( 1 ) Reveals that an accredited agency or approved person has engaged in a pattern of serious, willful, grossly negligent, or repeated failures to comply with the standards in subpart F of this part; or
( 2 ) Indicates that continued accreditation or approval would not be in the best interests of the children and families concerned.
( b ) An accrediting entity must, after consultation with the Secretary, refer, as appropriate, to a State licensing authority, the Attorney General, or other law enforcement authorities any substantiated complaints that involve conduct that is: ( 1 ) Subject to the civil or criminal penalties imposed by section 404 of the IAA (42 U.S.C. 14944);
( 2 ) In violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 *et seq.*); or
( 3 ) Otherwise in violation of Federal, State, or local law.
( c ) When an accrediting entity makes a report pursuant to paragraphs (a) or (b) of this section, it must indicate whether it is recommending that the Secretary take action to debar the agency or person, either temporarily or permanently.
#### Latea Staton, Appellant, v Gabriel Omwukeme, Respondent.

[715 NYS2d 908]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Price, J.), dated October 6, 1999, which, after a hearing to determine the validity of service of process, granted the defendant’s motion to vacate a judgment of the same court, dated April 22, 1999, entered upon his default in answering, and dismissed the action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff claims that at a hearing to determine the validity of service, the Supreme Court improperly rejected the process server’s corrected affidavit in favor of the defendant’s uncorroborated testimony that he and his wife did not reside at the address where service was effected.

At a hearing to determine the validity of service of process, the plaintiff has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the credible evidence that service was properly made *(see, Fosella Bldrs. & Gen. Contrs. v Silver,*208 AD2d 525). Moreover, the Supreme Court’s determination as to the credibility of the witnesses on that issue is entitled to great deference on appeal, and should not be overturned if supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence *(see, Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Roth,*240 AD2d 466; *Citibank v Freund,*238 AD2d 299). The Supreme Court’s determination that service on the defendant was not effective is amply supported by the record and based on a fair interpretation of the evidence. Further, the plaintiff made no showing that service under all of the other subsections was impracticable in order to permit the expedient service on the defendant’s insurance carrier *(see,*CPLR 308 [5]; *Dudley v Kerwick,*84 AD2d 884).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Friedmann, J. P., Goldstein, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
§ 505.12 Civil remedies and criminal penalties. ( a ) *Grounds for court action.* You will have a remedy in the Federal District Court under the following circumstances: ( 1 ) *Denial of access.* You may challenge our decision to deny you access to records to which you consider yourself entitled.
( 2 ) *Refusal to amend a record.* Under the conditions of 5 U.S.C. 552a(g), you may seek judicial review of the Agency's refusal to amend a record.
( 3 ) *Failure to maintain a record accurately.* You may bring suit against the Agency for any alleged intentional and willful failure to maintain a record accurately, if it can be shown that you were subjected to an adverse action resulting in the denial of aright, benefit, entitlement or employment you could reasonably have been expected to be granted if the record had not been deficient.
( 4 ) *Other failures to comply with the Act.* You may bring an action for any alleged failure by the Agency to comply with the requirements of the Act or failure to comply with any rule published by the Agency to implement the Act provided it can be shown that: ( i ) The action was intentional or willful;
( ii ) The Agency's action adversely affected you; and
( iii ) The adverse action was caused by the Agency's actions.
( b ) *Jurisdiction and time limits.* ( 1 ) Action may be brought in the district court for the jurisdiction in which you reside or have a place of residence or business, or in which the Agency records are situated, or in the District of Columbia.
( 2 ) The statute of limitations is two years from the date upon which the cause of action arises, except for cases in which the Agency has materially and willfully misrepresented any information requested to be disclosed and when such misrepresentation is material to the liability of the Agency. In such cases the statute of limitations is two years from the date of discovery of the misrepresentation by you.
( 3 ) A suit may not be brought on the basis of injury, which may have occurred as a result of the Agency's disclosure of a record prior to September 27, 1975.
( c ) *Criminal penalties* — ( 1 ) *Unauthorized disclosure.* It is a criminal violation of the provisions of the Act for any officer or employee of the Agency to knowingly and willfully disclose a record in any manner to any person or agency not entitled to receive it, for failure to meet the conditions of disclosure listed in S U.S.C. 552a(b), or without the written consent or at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains. Any officer or employee of the Agency found guilty of such misconduct shall be fined not more than $5,000.
( 2 ) *Failure to publish a public notice.* It is a criminal violation of the Act to willfully maintain a system of records and not publish the prescribed public notice. Any officer or employee of the Agency found guilty of such misconduct shall be fined not more than $5,000.
( 3 ) *Obtaining records under false pretenses.* The Act makes it a criminal offense to knowingly and willfully request or gain access to a record about an individual under false pretenses. Any person found guilty of such an offense may be fined not more than $5,000.
#### § 228.10 Purpose.

Sections 228.11 through 228.19 set forth the rules governing the eligible source of commodities and nationality of commodity and service suppliers for USAID Federal share financing under prime and subawards. These rules may be waived in accordance with the provisions in subpart D of this part.
#### § 238.11 Subrogation of USAID.

In the event of payment by USAID to a Noteholder under the Guarantee, USAID shall be subrogated to the extent of such payment to all of the rights of such Noteholder against the Borrower under the related Note.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0030

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

CORENA MARIE MOUNTAIN CHEIF, 

Defendant and Appellant, 

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s unopposed motion for extension 

of time, and good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including August 29, 2022, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

July 25 2022

07/25/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0030
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         120,987
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                5,201,363
<ALLOWANCES>                                   213,724
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,466,054
<PP&E>                                       6,496,761
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,340,582
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,069,673
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,483,449
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,653,355
<OTHER-SE>                                    (140,876)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,069,673
<SALES>                                     22,060,533
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            22,060,533
<CGS>                                       12,589,230
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               21,268,479
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             126,767
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                660,290
<INCOME-TAX>                                   259,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            401,290
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   401,290
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .07



</TABLE>
From: StacySword@aol.com [ mailto:StacySword@aol.com ]

Sent: Friday, December 30, 2011 11:45 AM

To: Francis, Loretta

Cc: carlvineyard@aol.com

Subject: K

- 2 Investigative report Sept 8th

Loretta,

I received a call from Scott Postma yesterday about the Hex Chrome calculation and I have made

changes to the report based on our conversation. I am attaching a new pdf copy of the report with revised

Hex Chrome numbers. If you could please review the report and forward a copy to Scott Postma when

you have looked it over.

Thank you,

Stacy Sword

Grace Consulting, Inc.

510 Dickson Street

Wellington, OH 44090

(440) 647

- 6672

- phone

(4 40) 647

- 6673

- fax
#### Hatzel & Buehler, Inc., Respondent, v Starrett Brothers et al., Appellants.

Order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 28, 1977, and judgment of the same court, entered thereon on July 5, 1977, affirmed, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements, upon the opinion of *1008Mr. Justice Aronin at Special Term. Latham, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
#### Florence Ramsey, Appellant, v St. Barnabas Hospital, Respon*522dent.

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, entered in the office of the clerk on January 28, 1976, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. In the absence of competent evidence causally connecting the fall of defendant’s elevator wherein plaintiff was a passenger at the time with plaintiff’s condition which required the laminectomy performed on her two years and nine months later, the trial court correctly excluded the hypothetical question asked of plaintiff’s medical expert which sought to bridge that gap. The record also established that other incidents which may have caused plaintiff’s condition intervened between the accident and this spinal procedure. On this record, to allow the question to be answered would have substituted speculation for fact (see *Wisniewski v Jem Novelty Corp.,*22 AD2d 10; *Putnam v Stout,*46 AD2d 812, affd 38 NY2d 607; *Quinones v St. Vincent’s Hosp. of City of N. Y.,*20 AD2d 529, affd 16 NY2d 572). Concur—Kupferman, J. P., Lupiano, Birns and Markewich, JJ.
```

[106th Congress Public Law 281]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

<DOC>
[DOCID: f:publ281.106]

[[Page 114 STAT. 865]]

Public Law 106-281
106th Congress

                                 An Act

 
      To amend the National Housing Act to temporarily extend the 
 applicability of the downpayment simplification provisions for the FHA 
   single family housing mortgage insurance program. <<NOTE: Oct. 6, 
                         2000 -  [H.R. 5193]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress <<NOTE: FHA Downpayment 
Simplification Extension Act of 2000.>> assembled,

SECTION 1. <<NOTE: 12 USC 1701 note.>> SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``FHA Downpayment Simplification 
Extension Act of 2000''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF APPLICABILITY OF DOWNPAYMENT SIMPLIFICATION 
            PROVISIONS.

    Subparagraph (A) of section 203(b)(10) of the National Housing Act 
(12 U.S.C. 1709(b)(10)(A)) is amended by striking ``executed for 
insurance in fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000'' and inserting ``closed 
on or before October 30, 2000''.

    Approved October 6, 2000.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 5193:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):
            Sept. 19, considered and passed House.
            Sept. 28, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```