alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION IX 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 

November 22, 2005 

Catherine Witherspoon, Executive Officer 

California Air Resources Board 

Post Office Box 28 15 

Sacramento, CA 95 8 12 

Dear Ms. Witherspoon: 

On October 20,2005, CARB submitted revisions to the California State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). We have reviewed materials submitted with the following rules and found that they 

hlfill the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 5 1, Appendix V. 

I Great Basin 1 405 1 Exceptions I 

APCDIAQMD 

Great Basin 

I Great Basin 1 502 1 Conservation Management Practices I 

I San Joaquii~ Valley 1 4 103 1 Open Burning I 

Rule # 

2 16 

[ an Joaquin Valley ( 4702 1 Internal Combustion Engines - Phase 2 I 

Rule Title 

New Source Review Requirements For Determining 

Impact On Air Quality Secondary Sources 

I South Coast 

12001 I Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) - 

Applicability I 

South Coast 

South Coast 

South Coast 

South Coast 

South Coast 

South Coast 

South Coast 

South Coast 

I South Coast I 2005 I Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) - New Source Review for RECLAIM I 

I South Coast 1 2007 1 Trading Requirements I Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) - 

403 

46 1 

463 

1302 

1303 

1306 

1309 

2000 

Prinred on Recycled Paper 

Fugitive Dust 

Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing 

Organic Liquid Storage 

New Source Review - Definitions 

New Source Review - Requirements 

New Source Review - Emissions Calculations 

New Source Review - Emission Reduction Credits 

and Short Term Credits 

Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) - 

General 
South Coast 

south Coast 1 2012 

I 

yolo-solano 1 2.21 

Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) - 

Protocol for Monitoring, Reporting and 

Recordkeeping for Oxides of Sulfur (Sox) Emissions 

Regional Clean Air Incentives Market (RECLAIM) - 

Protocol for Monitoring, Reporting and 

Recordkeeping for Oxides of Nitrogen @ox) 

Emissions 

Organic Liquid Storage and Transfer 

This addresses all revisions in this submittal. In the coming months we will review the 

complete revisions for action pursuant to Clean Air Act section 1 1 O(k). 

Questions regarding our completeness review should be directed,to Cynthia G. Allen at 

(415) 947-4120. 

Sincerely, 

\ - 

~irecfor, Air Division 

cc: Mr. Ted Schade, APCO 

Great Basin APCD 

Mr. David L. Crow, APCO 

San Joaquin Valley APCD 

Dr. Barry Wallerstein, Executive Officer 

South Coast AQMD 

Mr. Mat Ehrhardt, APCO 

Yolo-Solano AQMD 

Mr. Jorge L. Fernandez, Chief 

Program Evaluation Branch, CARB
No. 11-1235.

#### Phelan *v.*Norville et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
428P15

#### Trevon DeAndre Rice v. Harnett County District Court Jacqualyn L. Lee

Pit’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Mandamus*

Denied
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4456

To amend title 10, United States Code, to give a priority to the States

for the transfer of nonlethal excess supplies of the Department of Defense.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 19, 1994

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

Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To amend title 10, United States Code, to give a priority

to the States for the transfer of nonlethal excess supplies

of the Department of Defense.

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

3 SECTION 1. PRIORITY TO STATES FOR THE TRANSFER OF

4 NONLETHAL EXCESS SUPPLIES OF THE DE5 PARTMENT OF DEFENSE.

6 Section 2547 of title 10, United States Code, is

7 amended—

8 (1) in subsection (a), by striking out ‘‘The Sec9 retary of Defense’’ and inserting in lieu thereof
2

•HR 4456 IH

1 ‘‘Subject to subsection (d), the Secretary of De2 fense’’;

3 (2) by redesignating subsection (d) as sub4 section (e); and

5 (3) by inserting after subsection (c) the follow6 ing new subsection (d):

7 ‘‘(d) Nonlethal excess supplies of the Department of

8 Defense shall be made available to a State, a local govern9 ment of a State, a Territory, or a possession, upon the

10 request of the State, local government, Territory, or pos11 session pursuant to authority provided in another provi12 sion of law, before such supplies are made available for

13 humanitarian relief purposes under this section. The

14 President may make such supplies available for humani15 tarian purposes before such supplies are made available

16 to a State, local government, Territory, or possession

17 under this subsection in order to respond to an emergency

18 for which such supplies are especially suited.’’.

Æ
No. 11-5117.

#### Mohhommed *v.*Amison et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
S89O0050.

#### McRAE v. THE STATE.

(382 SE2d 104)

Decided June 22, 1989.

William L. McRae, *pro se.*

*Frank C. Winn, District Attorney,*for appellee.

Marshall, Chief Justice.

This case involves a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel a superior court judge to act on a motion to quash an indictment.

In view of the fact that this is a direct application to this Court for a writ of mandamus, this case is controlled by *Brown v. Johnson,*251 Ga. 436 (306 SE2d 655) (1983), and the petition is therefore dismissed.

*Petition for writ dismissed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,        AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the
undersigned, the Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of American Science & Engineering, Inc. (the "Company"), does hereby certify that to the undersigned's knowledge:



|Date: November 9, 2007 |  | /s/ Kenneth J. GalaznikKenneth J. Galaznik
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
|---------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to American Science & Engineering, Inc. and will be retained by American
Science & Engineering, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
<PAGE>

                                                                EXHIBIT 32.1

                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                           18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                           AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Angelica Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Stephen M. O'Hara, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

Dated: September 9, 2004


                                       /s/ Stephen M. O'Hara
                                       ---------------------------------------
                                       Stephen M. O'Hara
                                       President and Chief Executive Officer
                                       of Angelica Corporation
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"21-2330: LAL v. HHS [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"wbC1Rbh1oj\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/09-09-2022-21-2330-lal-v-hhs-rule-36-judgment-21-2330-rule_36_judgment-9-9-2022_2001776\/\">21-2330: LAL v. HHS [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/09-09-2022-21-2330-lal-v-hhs-rule-36-judgment-21-2330-rule_36_judgment-9-9-2022_2001776\/embed\/#?secret=wbC1Rbh1oj\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“21-2330: LAL v. HHS [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"wbC1Rbh1oj\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"RULE 36 JUDGMENT Posted: LAL v. HHS [RULE 36 JUDGMENT](pdf) Appeal Number: 21-2330 Origin: MSPB Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"22-1038: INTEL CORPORATION v. PACT XPP SCHWEIZ AG [OPINION], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"BEhDKPo2QL\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/02-24-2023-22-1038-intel-corporation-v-pact-xpp-schweiz-ag-opinion-22-1038-opinion-2-24-2023_2085786\/\">22-1038: INTEL CORPORATION v. PACT XPP SCHWEIZ AG [OPINION], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/02-24-2023-22-1038-intel-corporation-v-pact-xpp-schweiz-ag-opinion-22-1038-opinion-2-24-2023_2085786\/embed\/#?secret=BEhDKPo2QL\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“22-1038: INTEL CORPORATION v. PACT XPP SCHWEIZ AG [OPINION], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"BEhDKPo2QL\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"OPINION Posted: INTEL CORPORATION v. PACT XPP SCHWEIZ AG [OPINION](pdf) Appeal Number: 22-1038 Origin: PTO Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
§ 302-8.101 What are the criteria for determining whether an official station is an isolated official station for purposes of this part? ( a ) As determined by your agency, an official station at an isolated location is a place of permanent duty assignment in CONUS at which you have no alternative except to live where you are unable to use your HHG because: ( 1 ) The type of quarters you are required to occupy at the isolated official station will not accommodate your HHG; or
( 2 ) Residence quarters which would accommodate your HHG are not available within reasonable daily commuting distance of the official station.
( b ) The designation of an official station as isolated in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section shall not preclude a determination in individual instances that adequate housing is available for some employees stationed there based on housing which may be available within daily commuting distance and the size and other characteristics of each employee's immediate family. In such instances the station shall not be considered isolated with regard to you if your agency determines adequate family housing is available for you.
Note to § 302-8.101 :
Heads of agencies concerned are responsible for designating the isolated official station at which conditions exist for allowing extended storage of HHG at Government expense for some or all employees.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
ANACOMP, INC.'S JUNE 30, 1997 FORM 10-Q QUARTERLY REPORT AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>                      
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     <blank>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         50,006
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  66,443
<ALLOWANCES>                                   6,364
<INVENTORY>                                    27,106
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               147,637
<PP&E>                                         39,075
<DEPRECIATION>                                 10,693
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 396,407
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          109,370
<BONDS>                                        254,919
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       137
<OTHER-SE>                                     27,731
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   396,407
<SALES>                                        205,579
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               345,014
<CGS>                                          153,672
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  46,405
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             27,974
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (30,936)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   11,400
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (42,336)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                11,661
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (53,997)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (4.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (4.05)
        


</TABLE>
18 

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2010-12-23T16:21:33-0500
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
#### § 102-118.515 Does my agency have any recourse not to pay a Certificate of Settlement?

No, a Certificate of Settlement is the final administrative action.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

BORUSAN MANNESMANN BORU SANAYI VE 

TICARET A.S., BORUSAN MANNESMANN PIPE 

U.S. INC.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants

v.

UNITED STATES, WHEATLAND TUBE, NUCOR 

TUBULAR PRODUCTS INC.,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________

2021-2097

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of International 

Trade in No. 1:20-cv-00015-JAR, Senior Judge Jane A. Restani.

-------------------------------------------------

BORUSAN MANNESMANN BORU SANAYI VE 

TICARET A.S., BORUSAN MANNESMANN PIPE 

U.S. INC.,

Plaintiffs-Appellees

v.

NUCOR TUBULAR PRODUCTS INC., UNITED 

STATES,

Defendants-Appellees

Case: 21-2097 Document: 46 Page: 1 Filed: 07/01/2022
2 BORUSAN MANNESMANN BORU SANAYI VE TICARET A.S. v. US

WHEATLAND TUBE,

Defendant-Appellant

______________________

2021-2170

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of International 

Trade in No. 1:20-cv-00015-JAR, Senior Judge Jane A. Restani.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

O R D E R

Upon consideration of Wheatland Tube’s unopposed 

motion to voluntarily dismiss its appeal, No. 2021-2170,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The motion is granted. Appeal No. 2021-2170 is 

dismissed. The revised official caption and short caption 

are reflected in this order.

(2) Nucor Tubular Products Inc.’s response brief remains due no later than July 5, 2022.

(3) The Clerk of Court shall transmit a copy of this order to the merits panel assigned to this case.

July 1, 2022

 Date

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE (as to Appeal No. 2021-2170 

only): July 1, 2022

Case: 21-2097 Document: 46 Page: 2 Filed: 07/01/2022
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**MOSSIMO, INC.**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with the Annual Report of Mossimo, Inc. (theCompany) on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31,2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the Report), I Mossimo Giannulli, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, certify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to thebest of my knowledge:

(1)         The Report, to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.1,fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)         The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition, results of operations, and cashflows of the Company.
| /s/ Mossimo Giannulli                      |   |   |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| Mossimo  Giannulli                         |   |
| *Chairman and Co-Chief  Executive Officer* |   |
| April 27, 2005                             |   |

 

A SIGNED ORIGINALOF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE COMPANY AND WILL BE RETAINED BY THECOMPANY AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION STAFF UPONREQUEST.

THIS CERTIFICATIONACCOMPANIES THE FORM 10-K TO WHICH IT RELATES, IS NOT DEEMED FILEDWITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION AND IS NOT TO BE INCORPORATED BYREFERENCE INTO A FILING OF THE COMPANY UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT OF 1933 OR THESECURITIES ACT OF 1934 (WHETHER MADE BEFORE OR AFTER THE DATE OF THE FORM 10-K),IRRESPECTIVE OF ANY GENERAL INCORPORATION LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN SUCH FILING.

----
###### Editorial Note on Part 1

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 1 appear at 63 FR 54077, Oct. 8, 1998.

#### § 1.1916 Suspending or terminating collection action.

The suspension or termination of collection action shall be made in accordance with the standards set forth in part 903 of the Federal Claims Collection Standards (31 CFR part 903).
airg-ex101_130.htm



 

Exhibit 10.1

AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

This Amendment to Amended and Restated Employment Agreement (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into effective as of August 8, 2019, by and between AIRGAIN, INC. (the “Company”) and JACOB SUEN  (“Employee”).

RECITALS

WHEREAS, Employee and the Company previously entered into that certain Amended and Restated Employment Agreement effective January 16, 2019 (the “Agreement”), pursuant to which Employee currently is employed by the Company; and

WHEREAS, the Company and Employee wish to enter into this Amendment to modify certain terms of the Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants and the respective undertakings of the Company and Employee set forth below, the Company and Employee agree as follows:

AGREEMENT

Amendment to Section 3(a)

1..  Section 3(a) of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:

 

a.Title/Responsibilities.  Effective August 8, 2019, Employee shall be the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, reporting to the Board. Employee shall perform all of the duties and responsibilities of such offices set forth in the Bylaws of the Company and those commonly associated with such offices and such further duties and responsibilities as may from time to time be assigned to him by the Board.  

Amendment to Section 4(a)

2..  Section 4(a) of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:

 

a.Base Salary.  Effective August 8, 2019, the Company shall pay Employee a base salary of $400,000 per year, or such higher amount as the Board may determine from time to time, less applicable federal and state withholding taxes, in accordance with the Company's regular payroll practices (the “Base Salary”).

3.Status of Agreement.  Except to the limited extent expressly amended hereby, the Agreement and its terms and conditions remain in full force and effect and unchanged by this Amendment.  Capitalized terms used herein but not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed such terms in the Agreement.

4.Duplicate Counterparts; Facsimile. This Amendment may be executed in duplicate counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original; provided, however, such 

 

 

 





 

counterparts shall together constitute only one agreement. Facsimile signatures or signatures sent via electronic mail shall be as effective as original signatures.IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment as of the date(s) set forth below.

 

 

AIRGAIN, INC.

Dated:  August 8,2019By:/s/ Anil Doradla _______________

Name:Anil Doradla__________________

Title:CFO_________________________

 

EMPLOYEE

Dated:  August 8, 2019/s/ Jacob Suen

JACOB SUEN

 

2