alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.2




 










 


 


November 15, 2016


 


Revan Schwartz

 [ADDRESS]


 


Dear Mr. Schwartz,


 


On behalf of Integrity Applications, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), I am pleased to invite you to join the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) as a director, effective as of November 15, 2016.


 


As a member of the Board, you will be entitled to compensation under the Board’s recently approved compensation package for non-employee directors, consisting of: (a) an annual cash fee in the amount of $15,000, payable in four equal quarterly installments of $3,750 each on the last day of each calendar quarter commencing on February 15, 2017, subject to your continued service as of each such date; and (b) a grant of a one-time award of options to purchase up to an aggregate of 26,666 shares of the Company’s common stock, par value $0.001 per share, at an exercise price of $4.50 per share, under and pursuant to the Company’s 2010 Incentive Compensation Plan, as amended, which options shall vest in eight equal quarterly installments of 3,333.25 each, subject to your continued service as of each such date, commencing on February 15, 2017.  You will also be entitled to reimbursement for reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with your service on the Board, in accordance with the Company’s reimbursement policies, which the Company may amend from time to time. In addition, as a member of the Board, you will be added to the Company’s Director and Officer Liability Policy.  A copy of such policy is available for your review upon request.


 


The Board has already approved your appointment.  If you agree to serve on the Board, your term as a director will commence on November 15, 2016.  Your initial term of office will continue until the 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.  At such time you will be eligible to be nominated for election to an additional 1-year term. If you are not re-elected, your term of office will expire at the 2016 Annual Meeting and when your successor is elected and qualified.


 


This letter sets forth the entire compensation you will receive for your service on the Board. Nothing in this letter should be construed as an offer of employment. If the foregoing terms are agreeable, please indicate your acceptance by signing the letter in the space provided below and returning this letter to the Company.


 


[Signature Page Follows]


 












	
 

	
Sincerely,


Integrity Applications, Inc.


 


By: /s/ Avner Gal


Name:  Avner Gal

 Title:  Chief Executive Officer







 


Accepted as of November 15, 2016 by:


 


____/s/ Revan Schwartz________


          Revan Schwartz
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 99-20059

Summary Calendar

NANCY T. KING,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

BOARD OF REGENTS, of Texas Southern University;

ENOS CABELL, in His Official Capacity as Chairman

of the Board of Regents of Texas Southern University;

JAMES M. DOUGLAS, in His Official Capacity as

President of Texas Southern University and Individually;

JAMES GINN, Individually; JOANN HORTON, Individually,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(H-97-CV-446)

June 21, 2000

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Nancy T. King ("King") was employed by Texas Southern

University ("TSU") as a mathematics teacher under a series of oneyear contracts beginning with the 1991-92 academic year and ending
2

with the 1995-96 academic year. Beginning in 1995, King applied

for appointment as an assistant professor in the Mathematics

Department on tenure track. Her first application and subsequent

applications were denied. King filed her original complaint in

February 1997, against the Board of Regents of Texas Southern

University and various individual defendants in both their official

and individual capacities. King claimed violations of her right to

due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and her right to free

speech under the First Amendment. The trial court dismissed the

due process claim on summary judgment. The case was tried on the

First Amendment free speech claim to a jury. Based on the jury’s

answers and their verdict, the district court entered a Final

Judgment that King take nothing by her suit. King moved for a new

trial which was denied and King now appeals to this Court.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the reply brief, the

record excerpts, and relevant portions of the record itself. For

the reasons stated by the district judge in her Memorandum and

Opinion filed under date of December 22, 1998, we are satisfied

that the district judge did not commit reversible error in her

rulings on King’s motions for judgment as a matter of law and for

new trial. Accordingly, the Final Judgment herein is 

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Operating  Partners  1995-A,  Ltd.'s  balance  sheet and statement of operations
contained  in its Form 10-Q for the  quarter  ended  September  30,  1997 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         289,585
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  164,799
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               454,384
<PP&E>                                         3,554,544
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (923,985)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,084,943
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          67,417
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     3,010,356
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3,084,943
<SALES>                                        504,579
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               529,868
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  767,816<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (295,314)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (295,314)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (295,314)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes  lease  operating  expenses,  production  taxes  and  depreciation,
depletion and  amortization  expense.  Excludes general and  administrative  and
interest expense.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ANTHONY SUTTON,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 132 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 12th day of September, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

NICOLE CELESTE ANDRE, 

Appellant, 

v.

Case No. 5D22-98 

LT Case No. 2021-CF-001078-A 

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

________________________________/

Decision filed December 6, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court

for Citrus County, 

Richard A. Howard, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender,

and Susan A. Fagan, Assistant

Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for

Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General,

Tallahassee, and Daniel P. Caldwell,

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. 

AFFIRMED. 

EVANDER, WALLIS and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 21.1

DEL LABORATORIES, INC. - Subsidiaries


DOMESTIC
Del Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Delaware)
565 Broad Hollow Realty Corp. (New York)
Parfums Schiaparelli, Inc. (New York)
Royce & Rader, Inc. (Delaware)


FOREIGN
Del Laboratories (Canada) Inc. (Canada)
Del Pharmaceutics (Canada) Inc. (Canada)
Del Laboratories Limited (U.K.)
Del Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (U.K.)
Del Laboratories U.K. Limited (U.K.)
Pade Mexicana, S.A. de C.V. (Mexico)(50% owned by Del)
Laboratorios del De Mexico, S.A. de C.V.
DLI (Proprietary) Ltd. (South Africa)(50% owned by Del)

All subsidiaries are 100% owned by Del unless otherwise indicated.





March 3, 2004
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.2

THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT HAVE NOT BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE
SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, AS AMENDED, OR QUALIFIED UNDER APPLICABLE STATE
SECURITIES LAWS AND HAVE BEEN TAKEN FOR INVESTMENT PURPOSES ONLY AND NOT WITH A
VIEW TO OR FOR SALE IN CONNECTION WITH ANY DISTRIBUTION THEREOF.

                                   ROXIO, INC.
                                 PROMISSORY NOTE

$30,000,000                                                     ___________,2000

1.   PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST. Roxio, Inc. (the "COMPANY"), a Delaware
corporation, for value received, hereby promises to pay to the order of Adaptec,
Inc. or holder ("PAYEE") in lawful money of the United States at the principal
office of the Company, the principal amount of Thirty Million Dollars
($30,000,000), together with simple interest at the Applicable Federal Rate per
annum on the date of this Note. Accrued interest shall be payable in cash at the
time the Company pays the principal amount of this Note. This Note is due and
payable on demand, which may be made at any time after the earlier of
___________, 2001, or ten (10) business days after the closing of the
Company's initial public offering of its common stock.

2.   NO PAYMENT IF UNLAWFUL. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, no
payment hereunder shall be required at any time that such payment would be
unlawful under any applicable law.

3.   ATTORNEYS' FEES. If the indebtedness represented by this Note or any part
thereof is collected in bankruptcy, receivership or other judicial proceedings
or if this Note is placed in the hands of attorneys for collection after
default, Company agrees to pay, in addition to the principal and interest
payable hereunder, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred by Payee.

4.   PREPAYMENT; TRANSFER This Note may be pre-paid by the Company at any time.
This Note may be transferred only with the written consent of the Company.

5.   ACCELERATION. This Note shall become immediately due and payable if (i) the
Company commences any proceeding in bankruptcy or for dissolution, liquidation,
winding-up, or other relief under state or federal bankruptcy laws; or (ii) such
proceedings are commenced against the Company, or a receiver or trustee is
appointed for the Company or a substantial part of its property, and such
proceeding or appointment is not dismissed or discharged within 60 days after
its commencement.

6.   WAIVERS. Company hereby waives presentment, demand for performance, notice
of non-performance, protest, notice of protest and notice of dishonor. No delay
on the part of Payee in exercising any right hereunder shall operate as a waiver
of such right or any other right. This Note is being delivered in and shall be
construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without regard
to the conflicts of laws provisions thereof.


                                        Roxio, Inc.



                                       ----------------------------------------
                                       By:  William Christopher Gorog, President
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

March 4, 2013

s0225

Order 

March 4, 2013

146189

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146189

COA: 305354

Wayne CC: 11-003430-FH

CHARLES THEO TILLMAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 20, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

VIVIANO, J., not participating.
260 La. 1139

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Joe KOON v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 52239.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 8, 1972.

In re: Joe Koon applying for remedial writs and habeas corpus.

Writ refused. On the factual findings of the trial judge, the showing made by applicant is insufficient to warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.

BARHAM, J., is of the opinion the writ must be granted and assigns reasons.

TATE, J., is of the opinion that the defendant was entitled to counsel at the time of his guilty plea and that absent a showing this right was waived, his application has merit. See Kitchens v. Smith, 401 U.S. 847, 91 S.Ct. 1089, 28 L.Ed.2d 519 (1971).

DIXON, J., is of the opinion that Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799, requires the granting of this writ.

BARHAM, Justice

(dissenting from refusal to grant writs).

The district court judge admits that defendant pleaded and was sentenced without counsel. The writs must be granted. See Kitchens v. Smith, 401 U.S. 847, 91 S.Ct. 1089, 28 L.Ed.2d 519 (1971), my dissent in Ardoin v. Henderson, 255 La. 1029, 233 So.2d 923 (1970), and my dissents in State ex rel. Walker v. Henderson, 259 La. 712, 252 So.2d 438 and State ex rel. DeVille v. Henderson, 259 La. 951, 253 So.2d 792, and the dissents cited there.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BLUE WAVE SYSTEMS AS OF MARCH 31, 2000 AND FOR THE NINE
MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           5,207
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,129
<ALLOWANCES>                                       187
<INVENTORY>                                      6,691
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                22,172
<PP&E>                                          10,321
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,515
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  26,340
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,648
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           162
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,125
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    26,340
<SALES>                                         25,115
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                25,115
<CGS>                                           11,635
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,635
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                11,595
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  80
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,874
<INCOME-TAX>                                       187
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,687
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,687
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.11


</TABLE>
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 08592

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2File Name Description

x 08592\08592_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

08592\08592_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

08592\08592_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 08592\08592_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 08592\08592_Part E.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 08592\08592_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

08592\Certification Statement Plant ID 08592.pdf Plant certification statement

x 08592\Supplemental Documents\08592_Attachment - Maps.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 08592\Supplemental Documents\08592_Attachment - Water Balance Diagram.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.
**EXHIBIT      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF FINANICAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT      TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|                                               |                                                        |                        |
|----------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|
|                                               |                                                        |                             |
| Date: April              24, 2007   | By:                                               | /s/ YUNGENG              HU |
|                                               | Name:              Yungeng Hu                               |
|                                               | Title:              Chief Financial Officer & President |
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3233

To require the Secretary of Agriculture to take such actions as may be

necessary to control the infestation of southern pine beetles currently

ravaging wilderness areas in the State of Texas.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 6, 1993

Mr. WILSON introduced the following bill; which was referred jointly to the

Committees on Natural Resources and Agriculture

A BILL

To require the Secretary of Agriculture to take such actions

as may be necessary to control the infestation of southern pine beetles currently ravaging wilderness areas in

the State of Texas.

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

3 SECTION 1. ACTIONS TO CONTROL THE SOUTHERN PINE

4 BEETLE IN WILDERNESS AREAS IN TEXAS.

5 (a) ACTIVE CONTROL REQUIRED.—Notwithstanding

6 section 4(c) of the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1133(c))

7 and section 4(a) of the Texas Wilderness Act of 1984
2

•HR 3233 IH

1 (Public Law 98–574; 98 Stat. 3051), the Secretary of Ag2 riculture shall undertake active measures—

3 (1) to control the infestation of the southern

4 pine beetle in the five wilderness areas in the State

5 of Texas designated in section 2 of the Texas Wil6 derness Act of 1984; and

7 (2) to prevent the spread of the southern pine

8 beetle from such wilderness areas to adjacent private

9 forest lands.

10 (b) TYPES OF CONTROL MEASURES.—Measures un11 dertaken to control the infestation of southern pine beetles

12 in wilderness areas in the State of Texas may include the

13 use of salvage harvesting of timber stands that—

14 (1) are already substantially damaged by the

15 southern pine beetle; or

16 (2) will prevent the spread of the southern pine

17 beetle to healthy stands of timber.

Æ
nav.qf-topnav div.qf-icon div.qf-more-drop {
  height: 130px !important;
  width: 195px !important;
}
** **

**Exhibit 21**

**SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT**

Registrant has no parent; see proxy statement forRegistrant’s principal shareholders. The following are Registrant’ssubsidiaries included in the consolidated financial statements:

| Name of Subsidiary                           | ** ** | **State or Other**   |
|----------------------------------------------|------------|----------------------|
| **(Each Owned 100% by Registrant**           | ** ** | **Jurisdiction**     |
| **Except as Otherwise Stated)**              | ** ** | **of Incorporation** |
|                                         |       |                 |
| Castle Concrete Company                      |       | Colorado             |
| Continental Catalina, Inc.*             |       | Arizona              |
| Continental Copper, Inc.                |       | Arizona              |
| Edens Industrial Park, Inc.             |       | Illinois             |
| McKinney Door and Hardware, Inc.**      |       | Colorado             |
| Phoenix Manufacturing, Inc.             |       | Arizona              |
| Rocky Mountain Ready Mix Concrete, Inc. |       | Colorado             |
| Transit Mix Concrete Co.                     |       | Colorado             |
| Transit Mix of Pueblo, Inc.             |       | Colorado             |
| Williams Furnace Co.                         |       | Delaware             |

----

*                    ownedby Continental Copper, Inc.

**             ownedby Transit Mix Concrete Co.

----
# C_2013360EN.01000702.xml

| 10.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 360/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 360/7

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.7086 — Fondo Strategico Italiano/Ansaldo Energia)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 360/06

On 3 December 2013, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M7086. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M7086. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---