alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w02






Exhibit 10.02









September 21, 2010



Dear Geoff,



On behalf of Cadence Design Systems, Inc. (“Cadence”), I am pleased to offer you the position of
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, reporting to me. Your compensation will include
an annualized base salary of $350,000. As a Senior Vice President, you will be eligible to earn an
incentive bonus targeted at 75% of your annualized base salary upon achievement of corporate and
individual performance goals in accordance with the terms of Cadence’s annual Executive Key
Contributor Bonus Plan. In addition, you will be issued an option to purchase 200,000 shares of
Cadence Design Systems Common Stock and issued an Incentive Stock Award of 40,000 shares of Cadence
Common Stock, subject to approval of each by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors.



Cadence offers a comprehensive Employee Benefits package including a 401(k) plan and a
non-qualified deferred compensation plan (“NQDC”) for executives. We also provide a wide variety
of health and welfare benefits. Under this plan, you will be able to choose from several different
options in each benefit area including Medical, Dental, Vision, Life and Disability Insurance.
Additional details on all of these benefits can be found in your “Benefits Year-Round User Guide”
and will be discussed in depth at your New Employee Orientation.



Please understand that Cadence is an at-will employer as described in the attached “Employment
Terms,” and that this offer is contingent upon successfully passing of the Cadence background
verification and upon your execution of the Employee Proprietary Information and Inventions
Agreement.



Offers of employment remain open for a short period of time; unless otherwise notified, this offer
will expire on September 24, 2010.



Geoff, I am very excited to have you join my Executive Management Team and for you to help drive
the Company’s success.



Sincerely,



/s/ Lip-Bu Tan




Lip-Bu Tan

President & Chief Executive Officer




Cadence Design Systems, Inc. 2655 Seely Avenue            San Jose, CA 95134

Phone: 408-943-1234 World Wide Web: www.cadence.com
Case 3:08-cv-01820-CRB Document 10 Filed 04/15/10 Page 1 of 2Case 3:08-cv-01820-CRB Document 10 Filed 04/15/10 Page 2 of 2
§ 26.25 Hearing officer's determination and order. ( a ) *Scope of review.* The hearing officer shall conduct a de novo review of the administrative action to determine whether it is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, unless a different standard of proof is required by law or regulation. Each and every charge alleged by the Department need not be proven to support the administrative action. The hearing officer may modify or vacate the administrative action under review only upon a particularized finding of facts that justifies a deviation from the administrative action.
( b ) *Closing of hearing.* At the discretion of the hearing officer, the closing of the record may be postponed in order to permit the admission of other evidence into the record. In the event further evidence is admitted, each party shall be given an opportunity to respond to such evidence.
( c ) *Briefs.* Upon conclusion of the hearing, the hearing officer may request the parties to file proposed findings of fact and legal briefs. The hearing officer shall make a written determination and order based upon evidence and arguments presented by the parties. The determination shall be founded upon reliable and probative evidence. This determination and order shall be served upon all parties.
( d ) *Bench decisions.* Where the parties agree and where appropriate in the judgment of the hearing officer, a bench decision will be issued.
( e ) *Time period for issuance of decision.* The hearing officer shall endeavor to issue a determination within 60 days from the date of the closing of the record.
( f ) *Finality of determination.* The determination and order shall be final unless a party timely appeals the determination in accordance with § 26.26. The determination shall inform the parties that, if provided for and consistent with Departmental regulations, any party may request, in writing, Secretarial review of the determination within 30 days after the hearing officer issues the determination, in accordance with § 26.26 of this part. The determination shall include the mailing address, facsimile number, and electronic submission information to which the request for Secretarial review should be sent. A request for Secretarial review may be made by mail, delivery, facsimile, or electronic submission.
Exhibit 11        Statement re Computation of Pro Form Net Income per Share

Pro forma net income per share is calculated as follows:

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Nine months ended September 30, 1997:                               Number of         Weighted
                                                           Date        shares          Average
                                                  ---------------------------------------------
<S>                                                     <C>        <C>              <C>
Shares outstanding 1/1/97 (1)                            1/1/97    14,417,116       14,417,116
Shares issued                                           8/15/97     2,745,000          464,228
Over-allotment shares issued                             9/5/97       431,250           39,637
                                                  ---------------------------------------------
           Weighted average shares outstanding for the period                       14,920,981

            Net income for the period (thousands)                              $        15,213
                                                                              =================

       Pro forma net income per share (2)                                                    $
                                                                                          1.02
                                                                              =================

Three months ended September 30, 1997:                              Number of         Weighted
                                                           Date        shares          Average
                                                    -------------------------------------------
Shares outstanding 7/1/97 (1)                            7/1/97    14,417,116       14,417,116
Shares issued                                           8/15/97     2,745,000        1,387,583
Over-allotment shares issued                             9/5/97       431,250          118,475
                                                    -------------------------------------------
           Weighted average shares outstanding for the period                       15,923,174

            Net income for the period (thousands)                             $          5,433
                                                                             ==================

       Pro forma net income per share (2)                                    $            0.34
                                                                             ==================

   (1) Assuming  5,193,693 shares issued in conjunction  with the  consolidation
       transaction  described  in  Note  2  to  the  combined  and  consolidated
       financial statements had been outstanding for all periods presented.

   (2) There are no dilutive securities for the periods presented.

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6691

TERRY LYNN EVERETT,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

JOYCE FRANCIS, Warden; VALORIE RAPPOLD, A. W. Operations; 

KAREN LAMBRIGHT, Health Service Administrator; ELIZABETH 

BORAM, Assistant Health Service Administrator; ELLEN MACE, 

Clinical Director; EDDIE ANDERSON, F.C.I. Physician,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:07-cv-00135-FPS-JES)

Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 9, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit 

Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terry Lynn Everett, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel W. Dickinson, Jr., 

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Terry Lynn Everett appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown 

Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 

We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Everett v. Francis, No. 5:07-cv-00135-FPS-JES (N.D.W. 

Va. Apr. 13, 2010). 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
### §247b–14a. Identification of interventions that reduce the burden and transmission of oral, dental, and craniofacial diseases in high risk populations; development of approaches for pediatric oral and craniofacial assessment

#### (a) In general

The Secretary of Health and Human Services, through the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, the Indian Health Service, and in consultation with the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, shall—

(1) support community-based research that is designed to improve understanding of the etiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of pediatric oral, dental, craniofacial diseases and conditions and their sequelae in high risk populations;

(2) support demonstrations of preventive interventions in high risk populations including nutrition, parenting, and feeding techniques; and

(3) develop clinical approaches to assess individual patients for the risk of pediatric dental disease.

#### (b) Compliance with State practice laws

Treatment and other services shall be provided pursuant to this section by licensed dental health professionals in accordance with State practice and licensing laws.

#### (c) Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section for each 1 the fiscal years 2001 through 2005.

(Pub. L. 106–310, div. A, title XVI, §1601, Oct. 17, 2000, 114 Stat. 1148.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Children's Health Act of 2000, and not as part of the Public Health Service Act which comprises this chapter.

1 So in original. Probably should be followed by "of".
### §§5919, 5920. Repealed. Pub. L. 109–58, title X, §1009(b)(12), Aug. 8, 2005, 119 Stat. 936

Section 5919, Pub. L. 93–577, §19, as added Pub. L. 95–238, title II, §207(b), Feb. 25, 1978, 92 Stat. 61; amended Pub. L. 96–470, title I, §109, Oct. 19, 1980, 94 Stat. 2239; Pub. L. 99–514, §2, Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2095; Pub. L. 103–437, §15(c)(9), Nov. 2, 1994, 108 Stat. 4592; Pub. L. 104–316, title I, §122(o), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3838; Pub. L. 108–271, §8(b), July 7, 2004, 118 Stat. 814, related to loan guarantees and commitments for alternative fuel demonstration facilities.

Section 5920, Pub. L. 93–577, §20, as added Pub. L. 95–238, title IV, §401, Feb. 25, 1978, 92 Stat. 84; amended Pub. L. 103–437, §15(c)(9), Nov. 2, 1994, 108 Stat. 4592, related to financial support program for municipal waste reprocessing demonstration facilities.
Exhibit 10.1


 


RESEARCH AGREEMENT
AMENDMENT


 


THIS RESEARCH AGREEMENT AMENDMENT (the “Amendment”),
made and entered into as of this 23th day of August, 2010, is by and between
AGA MEDICAL CORPORATION, a Minnesota corporation (the “Company”), and DR. KURT
AMPLATZ (“Researcher”).


 


RECITALS


 


A.                                   Researcher is
the founder of the Company and was the inventor of the significant technology
which constitutes the core of the Company’s business;


 


B.                                     The Company and
Researcher are parties to that certain Research Agreement, dated December 23,
2005 (the “Research Agreement”); and


 


C.                                     The Company and
Researcher desire to renew and continue the Research Agreement for an
additional five (5) years beyond the term of that Research Agreement.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, in furtherance of the above Recitals
and the mutual benefits to be gained by the parties by entering into this
Amendment, the parties agree to the following terms and conditions:


 


1.                                       Term and
Termination. Paragraph 10 of the Research Agreement is hereby
deleted and replaced in its entirety by the following:


 


10). Term and
Termination. This Agreement shall commence on the date hereof and shall
terminate ten (10) years after the date hereof, unless previously
terminated: (a) upon ninety (90) days written notice by the Company to
Researcher; or (b) immediately upon a material breach of this Agreement by
any Party hereto which is not cured within ten (10) days written notice to
the breaching Party.


 


2.                                       Other Terms. The remaining
terms of the Research Agreement shall remain in full force and effect as if
fully set forth herein.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed
this Amendment as of the day and year first above written.


 


	
  COMPANY: 

  	
   

  	
  RESEARCHER:

  
	
  AGA MEDICAL CORPORATION

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/ John Barr

  	
   

  	
  /s/ Kurt Amplatz

  
	
   

  	
  John Barr

  	
   

  	
  Dr. Kurt Amplatz

  
	
  Its:

  	
  President
-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED March 21, 2017

v No. 328001 Livingston Circuit Court MARTIN EDWARD ZALE, LC No. 14-022392-FC

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: B ECKERING , P.J., and O’C ONNELL and B ORRELLO , JJ.

B ECKERING

, P.J. ( concurring ).

I concur in result only.

/s/ Jane M. Beckering
**Exhibit99.1**

 

PembrokeConsulting1401 Walnut Street, Suite 620Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102

 

 

Consent

 

The undersigned hereby consents to the use of theinformation contained in its report, dated October 9, 2002, prepared forInterline Brands, Inc. (the “Company”) in the Company’s Annual Report on Form10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004, and in any amendment thereto, and tothe use of its name as the source of such information.

 
|           | PEMBROKE CONSULTING |
|----------------|---------------------|
|           |                |   |   |
|           |                |   |   |
|           | By:                 | /s/ Adam J. Fein |   |
|           |                | Name: | Adam J. Fein |
|           |                | Title: | President |
|           |                |   |   |
|           |                |   |   |
| March 25, 2005 |                |   |   |
|                |                     |  |  |  |

 

----
### §7384e. Establishment of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Fund

#### (a) Establishment

There is hereby established on the books of the Treasury a fund to be known as the "Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Fund" (in this subchapter referred to as the "compensation fund").

#### (b) Amounts in compensation fund

The compensation fund shall consist of the following amounts:

(1) Amounts appropriated to the compensation fund pursuant to the authorization of appropriations in section 7384g(b) of this title.

(2) Amounts transferred to the compensation fund under subsection (c).

#### (c) Financing of compensation fund

Upon the exhaustion of amounts in the compensation fund attributable to the authorization of appropriations in section 7384g(b) of this title, the Secretary of the Treasury shall transfer directly to the compensation fund from the General Fund of the Treasury, without further appropriation, such amounts as are further necessary to carry out the compensation program.

#### (d) Use of compensation fund

Subject to subsection (e), amounts in the compensation fund shall be used to carry out the compensation program.

#### (e) Administrative costs not paid from compensation fund

No cost incurred in carrying out the compensation program, or in administering the compensation fund, shall be paid from the compensation fund or set off against or otherwise deducted from any payment to any individual under the compensation program.

#### (f) Investment of amounts in compensation fund

Amounts in the compensation fund shall be invested in accordance with section 9702 of title 31, and any interest on, and proceeds from, any such investment shall be credited to and become a part of the compensation fund.

(Pub. L. 106–398, §1 [div. C, title XXXVI, §3612], Oct. 30, 2000, 114 Stat. 1654, 1654A–497.)
# !WACKER 

# I

N ew S u bsta n c e -S il a n e 

# INDUSTRIA l SITES CONlROlLED BY WACKER OP E RATION DESCRIP TI ON

Si li co n e pai 'Y'I"e r s, other fi llers., w lora n ts

. crnssl i n lten, 

### a d j u vants, an d C<J t a l y& t s

Fina l 

### Product:

treat ed h yd rated a l umi n a 

### f----- -8 

## -----.J**IXXXX~** 

### CON F IDE N T I AJL**Ml~ ng/**  

### B l en d l n e: 

### lXXX XI**N~ ID** **NT IA.L**  

### Si li co n e rubbe r wmpoun d I n
a n 

### uncune d !;ta t e, 

### pr ovi d ed t o 

## 1---- -o 4 

### .-----.t c u • to mer.;. f or m <J idi ng a nd

,.. c u ring 

### I nto fin i shed**at~ cles**  

### at thei r prod u ction f aci lit ies



## Al

R e mo val of e mpt y 

### cont a i n er.; fo r 

### r e cyc l i n g or inci**n~?ra ti** **n**



## t n ee:l C3



### Equipme nt d'ea n i n g 

### operations,**so rll**  

### or dean l ng ae:e nt s 

### sent f o r recy<: l i nrg or i nci n e r at i on**eg~** 

### IX XXXI CONF ID E Nli iAL



### K e y : 

## ()amount of new substan c e
n eg neglig i ble**<~mount**
### §9167. Severability

If any provision of this chapter or any application thereof is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of the chapter, or any other application, shall not be affected thereby.

(Pub. L. 96–320, title IV, §407, Aug. 3, 1980, 94 Stat. 1000.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 96–320, Aug. 3, 1980, 94 Stat. 974, known as the Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Act of 1980, which is classified principally to this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 9101 of this title and Tables.
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL IMPEY,

Plaintiff, No. C-09-01973 EDL

v. ORDER DENYING SEALING REQUESTS

 THE OFFICE DEPOT, INC.

Defendant.

_______________________________/

In connection with Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, both parties filed requests to

seal various documents associated with their briefs. In its Order denying the Motion for Summary

Judgment, the Court stated that neither party had made a showing of “compelling need” to justify

sealing the documents in connection with a summary judgment motion and Ordered the parties to

submit supplemental declarations explaining the compelling need for filing the documents in

question under seal. Neither party filed any declaration, and the Court has confirmed with both

sides that they no longer seek to file the documents in question under seal. Therefore, the parties’

requests to seal (Dkt. nos. 53 and 69-8) are hereby DENIED AS MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2010 _______________________________________

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01973-EDL Document 93 Filed 08/09/10 Page 1 of 1
### §4576. Repealed. Pub. L. 97–35, title IX, §962(b), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 593

Section, Pub. L. 91–616, title III, §310, formerly §304, as added Pub. L. 93–282, title I, §107, May 14, 1974, 88 Stat. 127; amended Pub. L. 94–273, §2(26), Apr. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 376; renumbered and amended Pub. L. 94–371, §4(a), (b), (c)(1), (2), (d), July 26, 1976, 90 Stat. 1035, 1036; Pub. L. 96–180, §10, Jan. 2, 1980, 93 Stat. 1304, related to special grants for implementation of Uniform Alcoholism and Intoxication Treatment Act.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by N i nth C i r c ui tR ul e 36- 3. NO T F OR P UB L I C AT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E N IN T H C IR C U IT U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , ) N o. 08- 30468 ) P l a i n t i f f –Ap p e l l e e , ) D. C . No . 3 : 0 8 - C R - 0 0 0 0 7 - J KS ) v . ) ME MORA ND UM * ) I M A D S A L I M H E R E I M I , ) ) D e f e n d a n t –A p p e lla n t. ) )

O n R em and from the U ni t ed S t at es S up re m e C ou rt

B efo re: F E RN A N D E Z , K L E IN F E L D , an d C L IF T O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. A ft er a j u ry v erd i ct , th e d i stri ctco u rti ssu ed a j u d g m en to f co n v i ct i o n ag ai n st H e r e i mi f

o rh o n e s ts e rv i c e s f

r au d . W e a f

f i rme d th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t , b u tth e Su p r e me C our tva c a t e d ourde c i s i on a nd r e m a nde d “ f orf ur the rc ons i de r a t i on i n l i ghtof S ki l l i ng v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 561 U . S . ___, [ 130 S . C t . 2896] ( 2010) . ” H a vi ng done s o, i ti s appa r e ntt o us tha tthi s c a s e w a s tr i e d a nd a r gue d t o the j ury s ol e l y on the 

# FI LED SEP 23 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

th e o ry o f h o n e s ts e rv i c e s f

r au d th a tw a s r e

j e c t e d i n Sk i l l i n g . Se e i d . a t___ , 1 3 0 S. C t . a t2931; s e e a l s o M c N a l l y v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 483 U . S . 350, 360, 107 S . C t . 2875, 2882, 97 L . E d. 2d 292 ( 1987) ( c onvi c t i on r e ve r s e d w he r e “ the r e w a s no c ha r ge a nd the j ury w a s notr e qui r e d t o f i nd tha tthe [ S t a t e ] i t s e l f w a s de f r aude d of

a ny m on eyor prop erty. ”) M oreover, the j ury w as i nstruct ed and b roug hti n a verdi ct on thattheory a l on e. T here fore , w e r ever se the j ud gm entand rem and t o the di stri ct c our tf orf ur the rpr oc e e di ngs . S e e U ni t e d S t a t e s v. M or e l a nd, 604 F . 3d 1058, 1076–78 ( 9th C i r . 2010) ; s e e a l s o J ohns on v. U ni t e d S t a t e s , 520 U . S . 461, 468, 117 S . C t . 1544, 1549, 137 L . E d. 2d 718 ( 1997) ( w he r e a tt i m e of tr i a l l a w “ s e tt l e d a nd c l e a r l y c ontr a ry t o the l a w a tt i m e of appe a l , ” e rr ors t i l l pl a i n) ; U ni t e d S t a t e s v. H i l l i ng , 89 1 F . 2d 20 5, 20 6– 08 (9th C i r. 19 89 ) ( w hen j ury i nstruct ed on i m prop er i nt angi bl e r i gh ttheory, conv i ct i on re vers ed). R E VE R S E D a n d R E MAND E D.