alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Prepared by MERRILL CORPORATION




QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.01    
  


Amendment of Foundry Agreement  



	Date:	 	September 17, 2001
	 	 
	

To:	
 	

Tower Semiconductor Ltd.	
 	

 





    The
undersigned, QuickLogic Corporation, hereby agrees to amend the terms of the Foundry Agreement dated December 11, 2000 entered into with Tower Semiconductor Ltd.
(the "Company")(the "Foundry Agreement") as set forth below: 



	1.
	75%
of the credits QuickLogic Corporation received, pursuant to Schedule 6.4 of the Foundry Agreement as of the date hereof and totaling the aggregate amount of $5,337,356
(the "Credits"), will be converted into fully-paid and non-assessable ordinary shares of the Company;



	2.
	such
conversion of the Credits into equity will be effective as of five trading days from the Company's receipt of shareholder approval of this amendment to the Share Purchase
Agreement;



	3.
	upon
conversion of the Credits, QuickLogic Corporation shall be promptly issued 418,616 ordinary shares of the Company equivalent to the aggregate amount of the Credits divided by
$12.75. 




    All
other provisions of the Foundry Agreement shall remain unchanged. 


    QuickLogic
Corporation understands this amendment to the Foundry Agreement is subject to the approval of each of Bank Hapoalim B.M., Bank Leumi Le-Israel, the Company's
Audit Committee, Board of Directors as well as shareholders approval with respect to similar agreements between the Company and SanDisk Corporation, Macronix International (BVI) Ltd., and
Alliance Semiconductor, each, for the conversion of credits into equity and certain Israeli regulatory authorities (including both the Investment Center and the Office of the Chief Scientist) and will
take effect immediately after such approvals have been obtained. It is further understood that such shareholder approval requires approval by (i) the majority of votes cast at the shareholders
meeting, including at least one third of all votes of the non-controlling members who are present in person or by proxy and vote on the matter or (ii) the majority of votes cast on
the matter at the shareholder meeting, provided that the total votes cast in opposition to this amendment of the Share Purchase Agreement by the non-controlling members does not exceed 1%
of all the voting rights in the Company. 



	 	 	Sincerely,	 	 
	

 	
 	

/S/ Arthur O. Whipple
	

 	
 	

By:	
 	

Arthur O. Whipple
	 	 	Title:	 	Chief Financial Officer





By
signing below please indicate the Company's acceptance of the terms of the proposed amendment to the Share Purchase Agreement. 



	  
 Tower Semiconductor Ltd.	 	 
	

By:	
 	

	
 	

 
	Title:	 	
	 	 











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.01
Open Literature Review Screen

Chemical Name: Atrazine

CAS No: 1912-24-9

Citation: Navarro, E., H. Guasch, and S. Sabater (2002). "Use ofmicrobenthic algal

communities in ecotoxicological tests for the assessment of water quality: the Ter river

case study." Journal of Applied Phycology 14: 41-48. (Vl1t.t 0 4 cQ"'2L IIZb)

Date of Screen: September 18, 2009

Rationale for Not Conducting a Full Open Literature Review Summary: The

ecotoxicology tests to determine EC50 ofperiphyton photon yield were conducted at

seven concentrations of atrazine; however, the a.i. exposure concentrations were not

specified.

Primary Reviewer: Lynne Binari, Subcontractor to Cambridge Environmental Inc.

Secondary Reviewer: Teri Myers, Senior Scientist, Cambridge Environmental Inc.

1II1IIIIII

2087847
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed September 11 , 2018.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14
- 18
- 00780
- CV

IN RE DANA WAYNE AND REA , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 312th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017
- 46720



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
On S eptember 7, 2018, relator Dana Wayne Andrea filed a petition for writ of

m andamus in this c ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 ( West Supp. 2017 ); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. The underlying action is a contested divorce proceeding

. In the mandamus petition, relator asks this c ourt to compel the Honorable David Farr , presiding judge of the 312th District Court of Harr is County , to vacate his August2 29, 2018 order awarding $45,000 in interim attorney’ s fees to be paid by relator to the real party in interest Ramona Charisse Andrea within ten days of the order.
R elator also has filed a motion asking this court to stay th e trial court’s August 29, 2018 order

. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(b), 52.10. With certain exceptions, to obtain mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court clearly abused its discretion and that the relator has no adequate remedy at law, s uch as an appeal . In re Prudential Ins. Co

. of Am. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

– 36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). W hen the trial court awards interim attorney’s fees, generally there is an adequate remedy at law , so mandamus will not lie to alter the trial court’s award of interim attorney’s fees. In re Bennett, No. 12

- 18

- 00149

- CV, 2018 WL 4199995, at *5 (Tex. App.

— Tyler Aug. 31, 2018, orig. proceeding) ; In re Chu , 134 S.W.3d 459, 468 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2004, orig. proceeding); In re Bissell , 109 S.W.3d 87, 89 (Tex. App.

— El Paso 2003, orig. proceeding)

. I d

. “ Gene rally, orders awarding attorney’ s fees, even those imposed as sanctions, are reviewable on appeal and mandamus will not issue. ” Baluch v. O'Donnell , 763 S.W.2d 8, 11 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1988, no writ) (citing Street v. Second Court of Appeals , 715 S.W.2d 638, 639 (Tex.1986) (orig. proceeding) )

. “Mandamus lies to correct the award of interim fees only in extreme cases in which a ‘ party’ s ability to prosecute the case further is jeopardized’ by the party’ s payment of, or inability to pay, the fees.” In re Chu , 134 S.W.3d at 468

. See In re Bennett , 2018 WL 4199995, at *5

. See also c.f. In re RH White Oak, LLC , 442 S.W.3d 492, 503 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 20 14, orig. proceeding) (denying mandamus relief because relators have not explained why the sanctions are so severe as to threaten their ability to continue litigation).3 The trial court ordered relator to pay real party in interest $45,000 in interim attorney fees

. Relator has not asserted that the payment of this amount would jeopardize his abil ity to continue the litigation. Relator therefore has not shown that he lacks an adequate remedy by appeal after final judgment. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of manda mus and motion for stay.

PER CURIAM
Panel c onsists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and Busby.
#### The State of Iowa, Appellee, v. Geo. J. Hughlan, Appellant.

Appeal: notice : practice.

*Appeal from Polh District Court.*— Hon. W. F. Conrad, Judge.

Wednesday, October 29, 1890.

Robinson, J.

Defendant appears to have been convicted of the crime of owning and keeping intoxicating liquors for sale in violation of law. The case is submitted in this court on a partial transcript of the record. A paper which is alleged to be a copy of the notice of appeal is set out in the transcript, but it is not shown that any notice of appeal was ever served. The cause is, therefore, dismissed.
#### Edward Knott, Appellee, v. J. D. Bessmer, Street Commissioner, etc., Appellant.

Appeal: equity cause : record.

*Appeal from Bremer District Gourt.*— Hon. John C. Sherwin, Judge.

Wednesday, May 13, 1891.

Action in equity to restrain the defendant, as street commissioner, from removing certain fences, and from opening an alleged street in the city of Waverly. There was a decree in favor of the plaintiff, from which the defendants *appeals.*

Affirmed.

*A. F. Brown,*for appellant.

*Gibson & Dawson,*for appellee.

Robinson, J.

From the record submitted in this court we infer that a considerable amount of the evidence was introduced in the district court, and a full hearing there had on the merits of the case. Although this is an equitable action, the appellee contends that the condition of the record is such that there can be no trial *de novo.*We have examined the abstract, and an amendment thereto, filed by the appellant, with much care, but do not find any statement or claim that the abstract submitted is a full abstract of the record in the case. A certificate which the trial judge appended to a transcript of the evidence is printed, but, as we have frequently held, that does not show that the evidence it was designed to certify is fully abstracted. *Shat-tuek v. Ins. Go.,*78 Iowa, 378. Since the abstract did not claim to be a full abstract of the record, it was not necessary for the appellee to file a denial in order to raise the question of its sufficiency, and he has not in any manner waived his right to do so. Aitnough we regret the necessity of. making final disposition of a case in any. other manner than upon its merits-, jet we cannot disregard the rules of practice as frequently *753announced by this court. *Railroad v. Secor,*70 Iowa, 647 ; *Walrod v. Flanigan,*75 Iowa, 366. An assignment of error lias been filed by the appellant, by which the correctness of certain rulings and findings of the district court is sought to be questioned, but the condition of the record is such that the alleged error cannot be considered. AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sector 10, Inc.; on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), Laurence A. Madison, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), that to his knowledge:

(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 Company.



By:  /s/ Laurence A. Madison



Name: Laurence A. Madison

Chief Financial Officer



August 14, 2009
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 570

To amend chapter 3 of title 28, United States Code, to eliminate 2 vacant

judgeships on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 9, 1999

Mr. HELMS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend chapter 3 of title 28, United States Code, to

eliminate 2 vacant judgeships on the Fourth Circuit

Court of Appeals, and for other purposes.

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

3 SECTION 1. ELIMINATION OF VACANT JUDGESHIPS ON

4 FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS.

5 Section 44(a) of title 28, United States Code, is

6 amended in the table by striking the item relating to the

7 Fourth Circuit and inserting the following:

‘‘Fourth .................................................................................... 13’’.

Æ
ACCEPTED CV-15-00006-CV FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 3/13/2015 2:28:41 PM KEITH HOTTLE CLERK
<PAGE>


                                                                Exhibit 99.1


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


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Union Financial Bancshares, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Dwight V. Neese, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss 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 as of and for the period covered by the
               Report.

                                               /s/  Dwight V. Neese
                                               ------------------------
                                               Dwight V. Neese
                                               Chief Executive Officer
                                               August 7, 2002
#### Chairman of Mecklenburg County Court, to the use of M’Bride, *v.*Clark and Springs.

From Mecklenburg.

The record of a recovery by the creditor of an intestate against his administrator, is not evidence in a suit by the creditor against the securities of the administrator.

This was an action of *debt*on an administration bond, tried below, before Nash, Judge; and on the trial it appeared that *George Hampton*bad been appointed administrator to the estate of *Thomas*Henderson, and entered into bond with the defendants as his sureties. *M* Bride,*a creditor of *Henderson,*had sued *Hampton*and recovered judgment, which was unsatisfied. *Hampton*being insolvent; and in this suit *McBride*was permitted to offer as *prima facie*evidence, the record of the recovery against *Hampton.*The admission of this testimony formed the ground of a motion for a new trial; and defendants contended also, that this action would not lie against them.

Per Curi-am. —

This case presents the precise question that was made in *M‘Kellar*v. *Bowers,*decided at this term. In that case the Superior Court rejected the evidence properly; in this case it was erroneously admitted. The judgment here must consequently be reversV ed.

JUDGMERT REVERSED;
Exhibit 99.7  Rule 13a-14(b) Certification CFO  In connection with the annual report of Agnico Eagle Mines Limited (the Company) on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David Smith, the Senior Vice-President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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, as amended; and  2.The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.  Toronto, Canada  March 27, 2017  /s/David SmithDavid SmithSenior Vice-President,   Finance and Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 211 (Thursday, October 31, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 86900-86901]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25346]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration #20778 and #20779; FLORIDA Disaster Number FL-
20016]


Presidential Declaration Amendment of a Major Disaster for Public 
Assistance Only for the State of Florida

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 1.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of FLORIDA 
(FEMA-4834-DR), dated October 16, 2024.
    Incident: Hurricane Milton.

DATES: Issued on October 23, 2024.
    Incident Period: October 5, 2024, and continuing.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: December 16, 2024.
    Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date: July 16, 
2025.

ADDRESSES: Visit the MySBA Loan Portal at https://lending.sba.gov to 
apply for a disaster assistance loan.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd 
Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of 
Florida, dated October 16, 2024, is hereby amended to include the 
following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

Primary Counties:
    Duval, Nassau, St. Johns.

    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.


[[Page 86901]]


(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Rafaela Monchek,
Deputy Associate Administrator, Office of Disaster Recovery & 
Resilience.
[FR Doc. 2024-25346 Filed 10-30-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8026-09-P
Exhibit 99.1

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

I, Thomas H. Waechter, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
Quarterly Report of Spectrian Corporation on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended September 29, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Spectrian
Corporation.

| |  | By:    |  | /s/ THOMAS H. WAECHTER                         
| |  | ------ |  | -----------------------------------------------
| |  | Name:  |  | Thomas H. Waechter                             
| |  | Title: |  | President, Chief Executive Officer and Director

I,
Michael D. Angel, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
Spectrian Corporation on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended September 29, 2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Spectrian Corporation.

| |  | By:    |  | /s/ MICHAEL D. ANGEL                                                                       
| |  | ------ |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | Name:  |  | Michael D. Angel                                                                           
| |  | Title: |  | Executive Vice President, Finance and
Administration, Chief Financial Officer and
Secretary

---

QuickLinks
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23
- 6255

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. CHRISTOPHER LEE GRIFFIN , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina , at Charlotte

. Robert J. Conrad, Jr. , District Judge. ( 3:14

- cr - 00082

- RJC

- DSC

- 4; 3:21

- cv 00513

- RJC )

Submitted : August 2 4 , 2023 Decided: August 29, 2023

Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges , and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge

.
Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Christopher Lee Griffin, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6255 Doc: 5 Filed: 08/29/2023 Pg: 1 of 22 PER CURIAM: Christopher Lee Griffin seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 motion . The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)( B ). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demon strating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis , 580 U.S. 100, 115

- 17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must de monstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 140

- 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000))

. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Griffin 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED USCA4 Appeal: 23-6255 Doc: 5 Filed: 08/29/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           9,674
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  104,427<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    130,317
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               314,588
<PP&E>                                         264,032<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 692,745
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          163,849
<BONDS>                                        366,616
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      94,539
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   692,745
<SALES>                                        208,883
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               208,883
<CGS>                                          176,989
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,759
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (3,089)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,024
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,071
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,953
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (22,563)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (19,610)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>AMOUNTS PRESENTED ARE NET
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Date: April 8, 2015

Subject: Discussion with Brick Industry

NESHAP for Brick and Structural Clay Products Manufacturing and NESHAP 

for Clay Ceramics Manufacturing

EPA Contract No. EP-D-11-084; EPA Work Assignment No. 3-12

RTI Project No. 0213199.003.012

From: Thomas Holloway

To: Sharon Nizich

OAQPS/SPPD/MMG (D243-05)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

I. Introduction

A meeting with representatives of the Brick Industry Association (BIA) was held at the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) offices in Washington, DC on April 7, 2015. The 

purpose of the meeting was to discuss the industry's comments on the proposed national 

emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for brick and structural clay products 

(BSCP) manufacturing.

II. Attendees and Affiliations

Garth Tayler, Acme Brick

Terry Schimmel, Boral Bricks Inc.

Susan Miller, Brick Industry Association (BIA)

Bill Wehrum, Hunton & Williams for BIA

Paul Regina, BIA

Janet McCabe, U.S. EPA

Sonja Rodman, U.S. EPA