alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.14


 Exhibit 10.14 

AMENDMENT TO THE 

BROADCOM LIMITED 
 SECOND
AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYEE SHARE PURCHASE PLAN 
 April 4, 2018 

This Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the Broadcom Limited Second Amended and Restated Employee Share Purchase Plan (as
amended, the “Plan”) is effective as of the date first set forth above, such amendment being approved by the Board of Directors of Broadcom Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), pursuant to Section 20
of the Plan. The Plan is hereby amended as follows: 
  

	1.	All references to the “Company” or “Broadcom Limited, a company organized under the laws of Singapore” in the Plan shall refer to the Company. The following will replace Section 2(e) of the Plan
in its entirety: 

 “(e) “Company” shall mean Broadcom Inc., a Delaware corporation.” 

 

	2.	All references to “ordinary shares” or other similar terms in the Plan shall refer to shares of the common stock of the Company. All references to “Ordinary Shares” in the Plan shall be deleted and
replaced with “Shares”. 

  

	3.	The following will replace the first sentence of Section 2(g) of the Plan: 

 “(g)
“Designated Subsidiary” shall mean any Subsidiary that has been designated by the Administrator from time to time in its sole discretion as eligible to participate in the Plan, such designation to specify whether such participation
is in the Section 423 Component or Non-Section 423 Component.” 
  

	4.	The following will replace Section 2(u) of the Plan in its entirety: 

 “(u)
“Shares” shall mean shares of the Company’s common stock, par value $0.001 per share.” 
  

	5.	The following sentence will be added to the end of Section 13(a) of the Plan: 

 “For
periods from February 1, 2016 to April 3, 2018, references to the Company in this paragraph shall be deemed to mean Broadcom Limited, a company organized under the laws of Singapore (“Broadcom Singapore”) and references to
the Board in this paragraph shall be deemed to mean the board of directors of Broadcom Singapore.” 
  

	6.	Except as provided in this Amendment, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect. 

 * * * *
*
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 764 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      October 24, 2007.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider in the House the bill (H.R. 505) to express the policy of the United 
States regarding the United States relationship with Native Hawaiians and to 
provide a process for the recognition by the United States of the Native 
Hawaiian governing entity. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. The bill shall 
be considered as read. All points of order against provisions of the bill are 
waived. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, and 
any amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) 
one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources; (2) the amendment printed 
in the report of the Committee on Rules, if offered by Representative Flake of 
Arizona or his designee, which shall be in order without intervention of any 
point of order (except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI) or demand 
for division of the question, shall be considered as read, and shall be 
separately debatable for ten minutes equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
    Sec. 2.  During consideration of H.R. 505 pursuant to this resolution, 
notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone 
further consideration of the bill to such time as may be designated by the 
Speaker.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ANGELO COICOU,

Appellant,

v.

STSTE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-2322

[January 13, 2022]

Appeal of order denying 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the 

Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; John Joseph Murphy, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 12-16549CF10A.

Angelo Coicou, Live Oak, pro se, for appellant.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY, LEVINE and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105 - 2498 **ME MORA**  **NDUM** SUBJECT: Heavy- Duty Hy brid Onboard Diagnostics FROM: Am y Kopin TO: The Docket DATE: July

25, 2011 

### On February 24 th 

### , 2011 we held a meeting in Ann Arbor, MI with the Hy brid Manufacturers Regulatory Collaboration ( HMRC ) to discuss concerns raised by members of the HMRC regarding heavy - duty onboard diagnostic (OBD) requirements and timing . C oncern s were raised during the comment period for the heavy - duty greenhouse gas notice of proposed rulemaking that heavy - duty hy brid applicatio ns may not be able to meet the 2013 heavy- duty OBD regulations that were published in the 2009 OBD Final Rulemaking. 1 , 2 

### Attendees are presented in the table below. **Attendee Affiliation**  Cleophas Jackson EPA Anthony Neam EPA Charles Schenk EPA Chien Sz e EPA James Sanchez EPA Peter Smith EPA Carl Ryan EPA Carl Fulper EPA William Courtois EPA Ry an Sparza EPA Maria Peralta EPA Robert Caldwell EPA Anthony Neam EPA Barbara Chance Allison Transmission Kevin Rodgers Allsion Transmission Ian McKenzi e Eaton Corporation Derek Matthews BAE Sy stems Thomas Apalenek BAE Sy stems

1 U.S. EPA, NHTSA, and DOT, “Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Fuel Efficiency Standards for Medium and Heavy - Duty Engines and Vehicles,” republished December 29, 2010. Available here: http://origin.www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR - 2010 - 12 - 29/html/2010 - 32726.htm 2 U.S. EPA, “Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles and New Motor Vehicles Engines; Final Rule Regulations Requiring Onboard Diagnostic Systems on 2010 and Late r Heavy - Duty Engines Used in Highway Applications Over 14,000 Pounds; Revisions to Onboard Diagnostic Requirements for Diesel Highway Heavy - Duty Vehicles Under 14,000 Pounds ,” published February 24, 2009. Available here: http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/im/ob d/regtech/hd - obd - frm - 02 - 24 - 09 - notice - 74 - fr - 8310.pdf OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Osteotech, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard W. Bauer,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss.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; and

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

                                               /S/Richard W. Bauer
                                               -------------------------------
                                               Richard W. Bauer
                                               Chief Executive Officer
                                               (Principal Executive Officer)
                                               May 7, 2004

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to and will be retained by Osteotech, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT AUGUST 2, 1998, AND THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF EARNINGS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED AUGUST 2, 1998 AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-02-1998
<CASH>                                         150,548
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               20,934,689
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (210,028)
<INVENTORY>                                 20,050,993
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            43,525,507
<PP&E>                                     105,625,270
<DEPRECIATION>                            (30,014,109)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             119,245,384
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       20,250,926
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        78,098
<OTHER-SE>                                  93,582,714
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               119,245,384
<SALES>                                    129,246,332
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           129,246,332
<CGS>                                      100,388,645
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              109,451,055
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (41,450)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               306,234
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             146,389
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             19,753,827
<INCOME-TAX>                                 7,925,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         11,828,827
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                11,828,827
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.46
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1




CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO




SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)




Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Target Acquisitions I, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:




The annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009 (the "Form 10-K") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Amended Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




Date: May 2, 2011




/s/ Geoffrey AlisonGeoffrey AlisonPrincipal Executive Officer and Principal  Accounting Officer




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to TARGET ACQUISITIONS I, INC. and will be retained by TARGET ACQUISITIONS I, INC. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Before the Second Division,

April 23, 1964

No. 68484.

protest 60/21379 (New York).

#### William Shaland Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawbence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the-merchandise consists of vacuum brush cleaners similar in all material respects-to those the subject of *Bruce Duncan Company, a/c Sims-Worms*v. *United States*(45 Cust. Ct. 85, C.D. 2202), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
EXHIBIT 32-2

                            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 on Form 10-Q/A of WNC Housing
Tax Credit Fund III, L.P. (the "Partnership") for the quarter ended
September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Melanie R. Wenk,
Vice President -Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general
partner of the Partnership, hereby certify that:

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

         2.       The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and result of
                  operations of the Partnership.



/s/MELANIE R. WENK
------------------
Melanie R. Wenk
Vice President-Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.

April 15, 2010
No. P66/70.

protest 64/13566 (New York).

#### New York Merchandise Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Rao, C.J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise covered by the foregoing protest consists of hibachis similar in all material respects to those the subject of *D. E. Sanford Company*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 296, Abstract 63217), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
From: dfinnegan@ehi.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:05:08 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Don Finnegan

Saint Louis, MO 63131
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 Report and Recommendation- 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

JOYCE MICHELLE DYER,

Plaintiff,

v.

JANE DOE et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5693FDB

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION 

NOTED FOR:

April 28th, 2006

This 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights action has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge

pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A) and 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Magistrates' Rules MJR 1, MJR

3, and MJR 4. On December 20th, 2005 mail sent to plaintiff by the court was returned as undeliverable. 

(Dkt. # 6). It has been more than sixty days since mail was returned and the court does not have a

current address for the plaintiff. The court has attempted to reach plaintiff at more than one address and

has not received a response. (Dkt. # 10). The plaintiff appears to have abandoned this action. 

DISCUSSION

Local Rule 41 (b) (2) states:

A party proceeding pro se shall keep the court and opposing parties advised as to his

current address. If mail directed to a pro-se plaintiff by the clerk is returned by the

post office, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the court and opposing parties within

Case 3:05-cv-05693-FDB Document 12 Filed 04/03/06 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 Report and Recommendation- 2

sixty days thereafter of his current address, the court may dismiss the action without

prejudice for failure to prosecute.

This action has existed more than sixty days without an address for the plaintiff. Dismissal

without prejudice for failure to prosecute is appropriate. Accordingly, the undersigned recommends

DISMISSAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to prosecute pursuant to Local Rule 41 (b)(2).

CONCLUSION

The court should dismiss this action as plaintiff has left no forwarding address and appears to

have abandoned the case. A proposed order accompanies this Report and Recommendation.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the Federal rules of Civil Procedure, the

parties shall have ten (10) days from service of this Report to file written objections. See also Fed.

R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of

appeal. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Accommodating the time limit imposed by Rule

72(b), the clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on April 28th, 2006, as noted in the

caption.

DATED this 3rd day of April, 2006.

A

Karen L. Strombom

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05693-FDB Document 12 Filed 04/03/06 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE>
                                                                                           Exhibit 11.1
                                                   Micro Linear Corporation
                                        Statement Re Computation of Earnings Per Share
                                                         (Unaudited)
                                            (In thousands, except per share data)

                                                  Three Months Ended March 31,
                          -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          1998                                   1997
                          -------------------------------------  --------------------------------------
<S>                       <C>          <C>           <C>        <C>          <C>             <C>
                                                        Per-                                    Per-
                             Income        Shares     Share         Income         Shares     Share
                          (Numerator)  (Denominator)   Amount     (Numerator)  (Denominator)   Amount
   Basic Income Per
   Share:
   Net income available
     to common
     stockholders             $570         11,650       $0.05       $2,204         11,995      $0.18

   Effect of dilutive
   securities:                                
     Stock options                            574                                   1,303

   Diluted Income Per
   Share:
   Net income available
     to common
     stockholders assuming
     dilution                 $570         12,224       $0.05       $2,204         13,298      $0.17
</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003

     In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of WNC Housing Tax
Credit Fund III, L.P. (the  "Partnership")  for the quarter ended  September 30,
2005 as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof
(the "Report"),  and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2003,  I,  Thomas  J.  Riha,  Chief
Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner of the Partnership,
hereby certify that:

     1.   The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934,  except to the extent
          that such  provisions  require the filing of an opinion of registiered
          public  accountants to accompany the  Partnership's  annual  financial
          statements; and

     2.   The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Partnership.




/s/THOMAS J. RIHA
-----------------
Thomas J. Riha
Chief Financial Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.
December 29, 2005
Before the First Division,

September 23, 1955

No. 59293.

protest 164951-K (Baltimore).

#### Samuel Shapiro & Company, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

An examination of the official papers disclosing nothing to disturb the decision of the collector, which was presumptively correct, the protest was overruled.
From: bschwa69@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:27:44 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Brian Schwartz

Ansonia, CT 06401