alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>
                                              
<ARTICLE>                                          5
                                                    
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                      JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                        DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                               20,045,539
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           540,415
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                              77,386
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     20,715,206
<PP&E>                                                3,523,402
<DEPRECIATION>                                        1,195,390
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       61,989,927
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                35,394,181
<BONDS>                                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                          25,958,822
<COMMON>                                                  6,432
<OTHER-SE>                                           (1,199,508)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         61,989,927
<SALES>                                               2,889,684
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      2,889,684
<CGS>                                                    76,344
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            76,344
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     39,368,763
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    1,527,106
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (43,118,782)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (43,118,782)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (43,118,782)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             (0.91)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             (0.91)
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.11

          SUMMARY OF SEVERANCE AGREEMENT WITH NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

Castelle  has agreed to pay the Named  Executive  Officers  (excluding  Scott C.
McDonald,  who has a separate  agreement) a severance payment ranging from three
to six months of their compensation,  subject to standard payroll deductions and
withholdings,  if the Company terminates the officer's  employment without cause
at any time or if the Company terminates the officer's employment as a result of
a change of control.  For purposes of the Company's agreement with the officers,
"cause" means  misconduct,  including:  (i)  conviction of any felony or a crime
involving moral  turpitude;  (ii)  participation in a fraud or act of dishonesty
against the  Company;  (iii)  willful  breach of the  Company's  policies;  (iv)
intentional damage to the Company's  property;  (v) material breach of the terms
of the  officer's  employment  letter  or  the  officer's  Employee  Proprietary
Information  and Inventions  Agreement;  or (vi) conduct by the officer that, in
the good faith and reasonable  determination of the Company,  demonstrates gross
unfitness to serve. Physical or mental disability will not constitute cause.


                                       E-1
# C_2008171EN.01005102.xml

| 5.7.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.7.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/51

---

Action brought on 22 April 2008 — Bernard v Europol

(Case F-45/08)

(2008/C 171/102)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Marjorie Bernard (The Hague, Netherlands) (represented by: P. de Casparis, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

First, annulment of the decision of Europol concerning the assessment of the applicant and the implicit rejection of her complaint with regard to that assessment, and, second, an order for Europol to pay damages.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the assessment of 25 July 2007 and the implicit decision to reject the complaint lodged by Ms Bernard on 23 October 2007; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the assessment of 25 July 2007 and the implicit decision to reject the complaint lodged by Ms Bernard on 23 October 2007;

| — | Order Europol to pay damages of up to EUR 7 500; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order Europol to pay damages of up to EUR 7 500;

| — | Order Europol to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order Europol to pay the costs.

---
ICRAS 1957 1845
- XXXX v 1

– A ffected Public

– Private Institutions 3 /4 /2013

This is a request for a new collection to obtain consumer information from foreign graduate medical institutions that participate in the William D. Ford Federal Direct L oan Program (Direct Loan Program) as authorized under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1963, as amended, (HEA). The request is to gain approval of a form for reporting specific graduation information to the Department of Education (Department) with a certification signed b y the institution’s President/CEO/Chancellor. The Department estimates an average of 16 hours is required to complete the reporting requirements
. 5 institutions X 16 hours = 80 hours **Repeat as needed for all sections** TOTAL S Response 1 Respondents 5 Burden Hours 80
# C_2008128EN.01002402.xml

| 24.5.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.5.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/24

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hof van Cassatie (Belgium) lodged on 17 March 2008 — C. Meerts v Proost NV

(Case C-116/08)

(2008/C 128/43)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Hof van Cassatie van België

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: C. Meerts

Appellant:

Respondent: Proost NV

Respondent:

Question referred

Are clauses 2.4, 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7 of the framework agreement on parental leave concluded on 14 December 1995 by the general cross-industry organisations UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC which is annexed to Council Directive 96/34/EC (1) of 3 June 1996 on the framework agreement on parental leave concluded by UNICE, CEEP and the ETUC to be interpreted as meaning that, where an employer unilaterally terminates an employment contract without urgent cause or without compliance with the statutory period of notice at a time when the worker is availing himself of arrangements for reduced working hours, the payment in lieu of notice that is due to the worker must be determined by reference to the base salary calculated as if the worker had not reduced his working hours as a form of parental leave in accordance with clause [2].3(a) of the framework agreement?

1

---

(1)  OJ 1996 L 145, p. 4.

1

---
<PAGE>

                    SFX BROADCASTING, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                 EXHIBIT 11.1

             STATEMENT REGARDING CALCULATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
             (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT FOR PER SHARE AMOUNTS)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   Year ended December 31,
                                                               1997           1996       1995
                                                               ----           ----       ----
<S>                                                         <C>            <C>         <C> 
Primary and Fully Diluted:
Average shares outstanding                                  9,526,429      7,563,600   6,595,728
Net effect of dilutive stock options - based on the
treasury stock method using average market price                  --             --          --
                                                          -------------  ------------ -----------
Total                                                       9,526,429      7,563,600   6,595,728
                                                          =============  ============ ===========
Net loss                                                    $ (21,247)     $ (50,852)   $ (4,396)
Less: preferred stock dividends and accretion                  38,510          6,061         291
Net loss applicable to common stock                         $ (59,757)     $ (56,913)   $ (4,687)
                                                          -------------  ------------ -----------
Net loss per common shares                                  $   (6.27)     $   (7.52)   $  (0.71)
                                                          =============  ============ ===========
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND THE
STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR FIVE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                              28
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    28
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      28
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,093
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,582
<OTHER-SE>                                     (13,647)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        28
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                45,479
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (45,479)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (45,479)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.05)


</TABLE>
MEMORANDUM

DATE: 11/24/14

FROM: Ken Mitchell/EPA Region 4

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

SUBJECT: Discussion of the Clean Power Plan at the Fall Meeting of the EPA Region 4 State and 

Local Air Directors

SUMMARY: 

EPA Region 4 provided information on the Clean Power Plan to participants at the Fall Meeting of 

the EPA Region 4 State and Local Air Directors in Chattanooga, TN, on October 29, 2014. The Clean 

Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014. 

ATTENDEES:

EPA

Jeaneanne Gettle/EPA Region 4

Ken Mitchell/EPA Region 4

Other Region 4 staff

External Stakeholders

John Myers/TVA

Jenah Zweig/SEEA

Jeremy Tarr/Duke Nicholas Institute

John Hornback/Metro4-SESARM

EPA Region 4 State and Local Air Directors, including VA (see attached list)

ATTACHMENT
**Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 24 March 2009 – Commission v Luxembourg**

**(Case C‐184/08)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 – Article 18 – Market for detergents and for surfactants for detergents – Sanctions

1.                     *Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of the merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration
– Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 8)*

2.                     *Member States – Obligations – Failure to fulfil obligations – Justification (Art. 226 EC; European Parliament and Council
Regulation No 648/2004, Arts 17(4), and 18) (see para. 10)*

**Re:**

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt or communicate within the prescribed period, dissuasive, effective and proportionate sanctions for infringements of Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on detergents (OJ 2004 L 104, p. 1). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. | | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, sanctions in accordance with Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 648/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 on detergents, the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg has failed to fulfil its obligations under that article. |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2. | | Orders the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg to pay the costs. |
<PAGE>   1


                                                                 Exhibit 24.4

                               POWER OF ATTORNEY

         KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that the undersigned director and/or
officer of ANTEC Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"), which
is about to file an annual report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, on Form 10-K, hereby constitutes
and appoints Lawrence A. Margolis, Mark J. Scagliuso and James E. Knox and each
of them his or her true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent, with full power
and all capacities, to sign the Corporation's Form 10-K and any and all
amendments thereto, and any other documents in connection therewith, to be
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said
attorneys-in-fact and agents full power and authority to do and perform each
and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the
premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as she or he might or could do
in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact
agents or their substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue
hereof.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto set his or her hand
and seal as of the 16th day of March, 1999.


                                                        /s/ Samuel K. Skinner
                                                        ---------------------
                                                            Samuel K. Skinner
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7464

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ALPHONSO BUSTER GILBERT, SR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District

Judge. (7:03-cr-00109-jct-1; 7:06-cv-00740-jct)

Submitted: March 27, 2008 Decided: April 2, 2008

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alphonso Buster Gilbert, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew

Bassford, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Alphonso Buster Gilbert, Sr., seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gilbert has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
# C_2019044EN.01008302.xml

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/83 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/83

---

Order of the General Court of 15 November 2018 — Labiri v EESC

(Case T-374/18) (1)

(2019/C 44/116)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.

---
EXHIBIT 10.5




AMENDMENT TO RESTRICTED STOCK AGREEMENT




This
Amendment to Restricted Stock Agreement (the "First Amendment") is made as of
this 31st day of December 2016 by and between Envision Solar International,
Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), and Peter Davidson, an individual
(the "Grantee"), with respect to the following facts:


RECITALS


A.      The Company and the
Grantee have entered into that certain Restricted Stock
Agreement, dated September 8, 2016 (the "Agreement"), and the Company and the
Grantee desire to amend the Agreement pursuant to this First Amendment.


B.       In conjunction with this
First Amendment, the Company has agreed to grant to the Grantee (i) 750,000
restricted shares of the Company's common stock and (ii) an additional 750,000
restricted shares of the Company's common stock to vest in the future from time
to time, based on the Grantee achieving certain performance criteria to be
agreed upon by the Board of Directors after discussion with senior management
at a future date.


C.       The terms used in this
First Amendment will have the meanings ascribed to them in the Agreement unless
otherwise defined herein.


NOW,
THEREFORE,
for one dollar
and other good and valuable consideration, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS:


1. Amendment.


The following sentence is added to Section 2.1 of the Agreement as
follows:


"Any
Restricted Shares not released from escrow as of December 31, 2016 are no
longer eligible for release from escrow and will not vest, and are hereby
cancelled and returned to the authorized but unissued shares of the Company's
common stock."


2.
Effect
of First Amendment.


The
Agreement will remain in full force and effect except as specifically modified
by this First Amendment.  In the event of any conflict between the First
Amendment and the Agreement, the terms of this First Amendment will govern.


3.
Counterparts.


This
First Amendment may be executed simultaneously in any number of counterparts,
each of which counterparts will be deemed to be an original and such
counterparts will constitute but one and the same instrument.


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, this First Amendment
is executed as of the date first above written.


 


	COMPANY: ENVISION SOLAR INTERNATIONAL, INC.	 	GRANTEE: PETER DAVIDSON
	 	 	 
	
    
      By:

    	 	
    
 

    
	Desmond Wheatley, President	 	Peter Davidson
Exhibit 32.2


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C SS. 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form, 10-Q(the "Report") of
Amaru, Inc. (the "Company"), for the period ended June 30, 2010 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Chua Leong Hin,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby 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; 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/ Chua Leong Hin
-----------------------
Chief Financial Officer
August 16, 2010