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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES ROBERT HRUBY,

Petitioner, No. CIV S 04-2254 DFL PAN P

vs.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS,

 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On June 3, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Neither party has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

Although it appears from the file that petitioner’s copy of the findings and

recommendations were returned, petitioner was properly served. It is the petitioner’s

responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local

Rule 83-182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective.

Case 2:04-cv-02254-DFL-PAN Document 26 Filed 09/15/05 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

2

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 3, 2005, are adopted in full; and

2. This action is dismissed without prejudice.

DATED: 9/14/2005

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02254-DFL-PAN Document 26 Filed 09/15/05 Page 2 of 2
Before the Third Division,

September 13, 1945

No. 50475.

#### Protests 46187-K, etc., of Asia Co. et al. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Nippon Co.*(32 C. C. P. A. 164, C. A. D. 303), which record was admitted in evidence herein. The merchandise represented by the items marked with the letter “A” on the invoices was held free of duty under paragraph 1705 as kelp, and that represented by the items marked with the letter “B” on the invoices was held dutiable at 10 percent under paragraph 1540 as seaweeds, manufactured.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TONY MARTINEZ, NO. CIV.S-04-2272 DFL DAD 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 

 v. ORDER

HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC.,

 Defendant.

_________________________/

This matter came before the court on June 16, 2006, for

hearing on plaintiff’s motion to compel further deposition. Mark

Emmett appeared on behalf of plaintiff. Scott Nelson appeared on

behalf of defendant.

Having considered all written materials submitted in

connection with the motion, and after hearing oral argument, for the

/////

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02272-JAM-DAD Document 16 Filed 06/21/06 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

reasons set forth on the record during the hearing, plaintiff’s

motion to compel is HEREBY DENIED.

DATED: June 20, 2006.

DAD:th

Dad1/orders.civil/martinez2272.oah.061606

Case 2:04-cv-02272-JAM-DAD Document 16 Filed 06/21/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 44035.

#### Protests 5934-K, etc., of American Import Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

On the authority of *Lamborn*v. *United States*(27 C. C. P. A. 46, C. A. D. 60) the protests were dismissed.
No. 48525.

#### Protest 79968-K of May Co. (Cleveland).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The revenue tax is not contested. In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the metal trays are of the same kind in all material respects as those involved in *Strauss*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 342, C. D. 710) the claim at 40 percent as household utensils under paragraph 339 was sustained.
Before the Second Division,

February 27, 1950

No. 54065.

#### Larry Lasker Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 501247-G, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Rao, J.

The protests were dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE

 ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

 NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

 DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

 GINA M. BENAVIDES

 GREGORY T. PERKES

 NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

 DORIAN E. RAMIREZ

NUECES COUNTY COURTHOUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FLOOR

CORPUS CHRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361-888-0416 (TEL)

361-888-0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLOOR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 78539

956-318-2405 (TEL)

956-318-2403 (FAX)

Court of Appeals 

Thirteenth District of Texas 

September 16, 2014

Judge James E. Klager

County Court At Law #4

Nueces County Courthouse

Corpus Christi, TX 78401

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Mark Skurka

District Attorney

901 Leopard Street, Room 205

Corpus Christi, TX 78401

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. David Jakubowski

Asst. District Attorney

901 Leopard Street, Room 206

Corpus Christi, TX 78401

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Patsy Perez

District Clerk

901 Leopard St., Suite 313

Corpus Christi, TX 78401

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Douglas K. Norman

Assistant District Attorney

901 Leopard, Room 206

Corpus Christi, TX 78401

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Hon. Travis W. Berry

Attorney at Law

P.O. Box 6333

Corpus Christi, TX 78466-6333

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Re: Cause No. 13-13-00358-CR

Tr.Ct.No. 13-714-4

Style: THE STATE OF TEXAS v. BONNIE DOWNS

Dear Sir/Madam:

Enclosed please find copy of an order issued by this Court on this date.

Very truly yours,

Dorian E. Ramirez, Clerk

DER:ch

Enc.
No. 48535.

#### Protests 17942-K, etc., of M. Kokolari et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated by counsel that certain of the cheese in question is similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706, and Abstract 42146). In accordance Therewith the protests were sustained to this extent.
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 01625

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 01625\01625_Checklist_092810_version34.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

01625\01625_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

01625\01625_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 01625\01625_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01625\01625_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 01625\01625_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

01625\Certification Statement Plant ID 01625.pdf Plant certification statement

x 01625\Supplemental Documents\01625_Part A_A5-3 Water Balance Z1-PF-01.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 01625\Supplemental Documents\01625_Part A_A5-3 Water Balance Z2-PF-01.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 01625\Supplemental Documents\01625_Part A_Section 5_A5-2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

01625\Supplemental Documents\01625_SEEG ICR Transmittal Letter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
## 2003 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
6-10-2003 

# L uk wago v . Att y Ge n U SA
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 02-1812

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2003 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du
. 

## Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" Luk wa g o v . Att y Ge n U SA" (2003). 2003 D e cisio n s . P ape r 420. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2003/420

### PRECEDENTIAL Filed May 16, 2003 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 02-1812
BERNARD LUKWAGO a/k/a MELVIN HAFT,

Petitioner v. JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General of the United States, Respondent Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

(A78-420-780) Before: SLOVITER, RENDELL, and GREENBERG,

Circuit Judges ORDER AMENDING OPINION IT IS ORDERED that the slip opinion in the above case, filed May 14, 2003, be amended as follows: Page 8, line 14 - “supra p. 5 ” should be changed to
“ supra p. 3. ” Page 21, line 5 - change the word “class ” to “particular social group. ” Page 35, line 14 - change the word “class ” to “particular social group. ”

### By the Court, /s/ Dolores K. Sloviter Circuit Judge DATED: May 16, 2003 A True Copy:

Teste: Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 

### 2
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v THOMAS G. ANDERSON, Seaman Recruit, U. S. Navy, Appellant

19 USCMA 8, 41 CMR 8

No. 22,295

October 3, 1969

*Captain Frank A. Nelson,*JAGC, USN, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Captain Patricia A. Murphy,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Quinn, Chief Judge:

A special court-martial convicted the accused of three specifications of unauthorized absence and one specification alleging breach of restriction. The accused had a history of similar offenses in his current enlistment; all of them stemmed from marital difficulties and excessive drinking. The court-martial imposed a sentence which included a bad-conduct discharge, notwithstanding the accused had over ten years of Naval service and testified: “It’s the only thing I’ve done all my life — been at sea.”

From the staff legal officer’s post-trial review, it appears that during the accused’s current enlistment he had served in Vietnam and had been awarded the Vietnam Service Medal. This information was not presented to the court-martial. Had the court-martial known of it, a bad-conduct discharge might not have been approved. United States v Rowe, 18 USCMA 54, 39 CMR 54; United States v Pointer, 18 USCMA 587, 40 CMR 299.

The decision of the board of review as to the sentence is reversed. A rehearing thereof may be ordered.

Judge Ferguson concurs.

Darden, Judge

(dissenting):

For the reasons set forth in my dissent to United States v Pointer, 18 USCMA 587, 40 CMR 299, I would affirm the decision of the board of review,
No. 52604.

protest 131783-K (San Francisco).

#### Raphael Weill & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It appeared that the goods were subject to the British purchase tax and on entry a duress certificate was filed in which the importer certified that it had entered the merchandise at a value higher than that defined in the tariff act because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases then pending on appeal for reappraisement. The collector disregarded said certificate and liquidated upon the entered value on the ground that the certificate was not signed, the signature being in typewriting. Under authority of *Clinton Smullyan Associates*v. *United States*(35 C. C. P. A. 7, C. A. D. 363) the court sustained the elaim that the liquidation should have been made upon the basis of the value found by the court on appeal to reappraisement (Reap. Dec. 6478), in which it was held that the British purchase tax was no part of the entered value.
## A indicates modality was assumed in the overall function of the assay

# Lines of Evidence Indicating Potential Interaction with the



# Androgen Pathway: Chemical A and J

Tier 1 battery assay Chemical A Chemical J

AR Binding ( in vitro ) Weak positive Weak positive
Hershberger (Interrupted HPG + in vivo = AR

mediated effects) Positive (anti

- androgen) Negative
Steroidogenesis ( in vitro , non - AR mediated effects) Positive Positive

Male Rat (AR, steroidogenesis , HPG axis) Negative Positive

2 Agency decision logic:

• Chemical A may interact with the AR in vivo

• Chemical J does not appear to interact with the AR in vivo

• Chemical A may interact with androgen pathway through receptor

mediated and non receptor

- mediated effects

• Chemical J may interact with the androgen pathway through non receptor

- mediated effects
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose R. Martinez, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 952]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Alvin Schlesinger, J.), rendered on or about July 1, 1992, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted. (See, *Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833.) We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no non-frivolous points which could be raised on this appeal.

Pursuant to CPL 460.20, defendant has the right to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within thirty (30) days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the Judge or Justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other Judge or Justice. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4754 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4754

 To terminate the obligation to repay bonuses of former members of the 
       Armed Forces separated for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 23, 2024

 Mr. Cruz (for himself and Mr. Cornyn) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To terminate the obligation to repay bonuses of former members of the 
       Armed Forces separated for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine.

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

SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF OBLIGATION TO REPAY BONUSES OF MEMBERS 
              SEPARATED FOR REFUSING COVID-19 VACCINE.

    (a) In General.--A former member of the Armed Forces who was 
separated from the Armed Forces because the former member refused to 
obtain a COVID-19 vaccine shall be released for any obligation to repay 
any bonus received by the former member.
    (b) Reimbursment of Repayments.--A former member of the Armed 
Forces described in subsection (a) who, before the date of the 
enactment of this Act, repaid any portion of a bonus described in that 
subsection shall be reimbursed for such repayment.
                                 <all>
```
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4240 

To establish that an individual who is convicted of any offense under any 

Federal or State law related to the individual’s conduct at and during 

the course of a protest that occurs at an institution of higher education 

shall be ineligible for forgiveness, cancellation, waiver, or modification 

of certain Federal student loans. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 2, 2024 

Mr. COTTON (for himself, Mr. HAWLEY, Mr. ROMNEY, Mr. SCOTT of South 

Carolina, Mr. TUBERVILLE, Mr. TILLIS, Mr. DAINES, Mr. WICKER, Mr. 

CRAPO, Mr. RISCH, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mrs. HYDE-SMITH, Mrs. FISCHER, Mr. GRAHAM, Mrs. BRITT, Mr. VANCE, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. MARSHALL, 

and Mr. CRUZ) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To establish that an individual who is convicted of any offense under any Federal or State law related to the 

individual’s conduct at and during the course of a protest 

that occurs at an institution of higher education shall 

be ineligible for forgiveness, cancellation, waiver, or modification of certain Federal student loans. 

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


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4240 IS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No Bailouts for Cam3 pus Criminals Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON LOAN FORGIVENESS FOR CER5 TAIN INDIVIDUALS. 

6 (a) PROHIBITION.— 

7 (1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other 

8 provision of law, an individual described in para9 graph (2) shall not be eligible to have any covered 

10 loan, or a portion of such loan, forgiven, cancelled, 

11 waived, or modified under the Higher Education Act 

12 of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) or under any other 

13 Executive Order or action of the Department of 

14 Education. 

15 (2) AFFECTED INDIVIDUAL.—An individual de16 scribed in this paragraph is an individual who is 

17 convicted of any offense under any Federal or State 

18 law related to the individual’s conduct at and during 

19 the course of a protest that occurs at an institution 

20 of higher education. 

21 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

22 (1) COVERED LOAN.—The term ‘‘covered loan’’ 

23 means— 

24 (A) a loan made, insured, or guaranteed 

25 under part B, D, or E of title IV of the Higher 

26 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1071 et seq.; 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 4240 IS

1 1087a et seq.; 1087aa et seq.) before, on, or 

2 after the date of enactment of this Act; or 

3 (B) a loan under the Health Education As4 sistance Loan Program under title VII of the 

5 Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 292 et 

6 seq.) made before, on, or after the date of en7 actment of this Act. 

8 (2) INSTITUTION OF HIGHER EDUCATION.—The 

9 term ‘‘institution of higher education’’ has the 

10 meaning given that term in section 102 of the High11 er Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1002). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v EARL W. RILEY, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

20 USCMA 145, 42 CMR 337

No. 23,373

November 13, 1970

*Captain R. O. Kellam,*JAGC, USN, and *Captain Michael J. Levin,*USMCR, were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Commander Michael F. Fasanaro, Jr.,*JAGC, USN, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

This special court-martial was convened under orders of the Commanding Officer, Student Company, Schools Battalion, Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, California.

The convening authority in this case is the same as in United States v Greenwell, 19 USCMA 460, 42 CMR 62 (1970). Since in *Greenwell*we held that he was without authority to convene a court-martial (Article 23, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 823), the Government concedes that the proceedings in this case should be declared a nullity. We agree. Cf. United States v Ortiz, 15 USCMA 505, 36 CMR 3 (1965), rehearing denied, 16 USCMA 127, 36 CMR 283 (1966).

In view of our action in this instance, we need not consider the other assignments of error since they should not recur when the case is retried.

The decision of the Court of Military Review is reversed. The record of trial is returned to the Judge Advocate General of the Navy. A new trial may be ordered before a properly appointed court-martial.
**Exhibit 10(b)**

SUPPLEMENTAL BONUS PLAN

The Compensation and Governance Committee (the "Committee"), on an annual basis, approves a totaldollar bonus pool for a Supplemental Bonus Plan, up to a maximum of one andone-half percent (1.5%) of the consolidatednet income excluding restructuring charges of Kimball International, Inc. (the "Company")and calculated before federal and state income taxes and the amount payable to employees under the Company'sProfit Sharing Incentive Bonus Plan.

The Committee empowers the Chairman of the Board and/or Chief Executive Officer to grant individualbonuses under the plan to eligible participants within certain ranges approved by the Committeeat the beginning of each fiscal year. Supplemental bonuses are awarded based uponindividual efforts not recognized under the Company's Profit SharingIncentive Bonus Plan.

Eligible participants are the Chairman of the Board,President, ChiefExecutive Officer,  Secretary, Treasurer, SeniorExecutive Vice Presidents, Executive Vice Presidents, and Vice Presidents of theCompany or its subsidiaries and any other salaried employees of the Company orsubsidiaries as the Chairman of the Board and/or Chief Executive Officer may select.

Any bonus under this plan awarded to the Chairman of the Boardor Chief ExecutiveOfficer must be approved by the Committee.

The payment and forfeiture provisions under this plan areunder the same provisions as the Profit Sharing Incentive Bonus Plan.

||
||
##### 



KEITHLEY INSTRUMENTS, INC.
2005 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE AND DIVIDEND REINVESTMENT PLAN
(As Amended August 2007)
 Section I  Purpose
  Section II  Agent
  Section III  Eligible Employees
 In General other
 Limitations on Rights provided,




---



##### 



Section IV  Enrollment and Subscription Periods
 Enrolling in the Plan
 The Subscription Period th
 Subscription Agreement
 Section V  Term of Plan
  Section VI  Number of Shares of Stock to be Made Available
  Page 2




---



##### 



Section VII  Subscription Price
 Presumptive Subscription Price
 Modification of Subscription Price
 Determining The Price of Stock
 Section VIII  Amount of Contribution; Method of Payment
 Payroll Withholding
 Base Pay
 Application of Withholding Rules i.e.
 Page 3




---



##### 



Contribution Adjustments for Uncompensated Leaves
 Section IX  Purchasing, Transferring Stock
 Maintenance of Plan Account
 Insufficient Number of Available Shares
 Handling Excess Shares
 Status Reports
 Page 4




---



##### 



In Service Stock Withdrawals
 Section X  Dividends and Other Distributions
 Reinvestment of Dividends
 Stock to Be Held in Agents Name
 Tax Responsibilities
 Withholding on Payments Made to Non-Resident Aliens
 Page 5




---



##### 



Section XI  Voting of Stock
  Section XII  Sale of Stock
  Section XIII  Withdrawals from the Plan
 General Rule
 Refund of Amounts Not Used to Purchase Shares
 Withdrawal of Shares
 Page 6




---



##### 



Section XIV  Separation from Employment
  Section XV  Assignment
  Section XVI  Adjustment of and Changes in Stock
  Section XVII  Amendment or Termination of the Plan
  Section XVIII  Administration
 Committee To Administer
 Page 7




---



##### 



Specific Responsibilities
      Section XIX  Securities Law Restrictions
  Need For Registration Statement
 Compliance With Blue Sky Laws
 Section XX  No Independent Employment Rights
  Page 8




---



##### 



Section XXI  Agent Powers and Duties
 Acceptance
 Receipt of Shares and Dividends
 Records and Statements
 Fees and Expenses
 Resignation
 Removal
 Interim Duties and Successor Agent
 Limitation of Liability to Participants
 Section XXII  Applicable Law
  Page 9




---



##### 



Attachment A
  KEITHLEY INSTRUMENTS, INC.
1993 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE AND DIVIDEND REINVESTMENT PLAN
 List of Participating Subsidiary Corporations
          Page 10