alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
On January 31, 2002, the 1996 Stock Incentive Plan was amended, by deleting
Paragraph 5 (d) and substituting the following paragraph:

          (d) Payment. The Option Price multiplied by the number of shares to be
     purchased  by  exercise  of the  Option  shall be paid  upon  the  exercise
     thereof.  Unless  the  terms of an Option  provide  to the  contrary,  upon
     exercise,  the aggregate Option Price shall be payable by delivering to the
     Company (i) cash equal to such aggregate  Option Price,  (ii) shares of the
     Company's  Common Stock owned by the grantee  having a fair market value on
     the  day  the  Company's   Common  Stock  is  quoted  on  the  Consolidated
     Transaction  Reporting  System  immediately  preceding the date of exercise
     (determined  in accordance  with Section 5(b) or as otherwise  permitted by
     the  Committee)  at least equal to such  aggregate  Option  Price,  (iii) a
     combination  of any of the  above  methods  which  total to such  aggregate
     Option  Price,  or (iv) any  other  form of  consideration  which  has been
     approved by the Committee,  including under any approved  cashless exercise
     mechanism;  and payment of such  aggregate  Option  Price by any such means
     shall be made and  received  by the  Company  prior to the  delivery of the
     shares as to which the Option was  exercised.  The right to deliver in full
     or partial payment of such Option Price any  consideration  other than cash
     shall be limited to such frequency as the Committee  shall determine in its
     absolute discretion. A holder of an Option shall have none of the rights of
     a stockholder  until the shares are issued to him or her;  provided that if
     an  optionee  exercises  an Option and the  appropriate  purchase  price is
     received by the Company in  accordance  with this Section 5(d) prior to any
     dividend  record  date,  such  optionee  shall be  entitled  to receive the
     dividends  which  would be paid on the shares  subject to such  exercise if
     such shares were outstanding on such record date.
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 24, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-11228

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN SOROLA-GOMEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:02-CR-27-1-C

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

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Sorola-Gomez appeals the sentence imposed following his

guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after

deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. SorolaGomez contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)

define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction

that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a

separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been

alleged in his indictment. Sorola-Gomez maintains that he

pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry
No. 02-11228

-2-

under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds

the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed

for that offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Sorola-Gomez acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

In lieu of filing an appellee’s brief, the Government has

filed a motion asking this court to dismiss this appeal or, in

the alternative, to summarily affirm the district court’s

judgment. The Government’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. The

motion for a summary affirmance is GRANTED. The Government need

not file an appellee’s brief. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED; MOTION FOR SUMMARY

AFFIRMANCE GRANTED.
<!--/* //NOSONAR */-->
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><html  lang="en-US">
<head id="Head"><meta id="MetaDescription" name="DESCRIPTION" /><meta id="MetaKeywords" name="KEYWORDS" /><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width,initial-scale=1" /><title>
	Japan Self-Defense Force Joint Staff College Visits George Washington
</title><link id="css3605" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/module.css" /><link id="css4870" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/desktopmodules/ArticleCS/styles/Joint/style.css" /></head>
<body>
    <main>
    <div>
    <div class="aprint news">
    <div class="header">
        <img height="100" class="print-logo" alt="Site Logo" src="/Portals/55/INDOPACOM2018_100x100.png?ver=J6xEsvouw9aaqHcHjhoIIQ%3d%3d" />

        <h1 class="title">Japan Self-Defense Force Joint Staff College Visits George Washington</h1>
    </div>
    

    <div><b>By Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Paolo Bayas</b> <span class="date">/ Published Dec. 19, 2013</span></div>
    <span class="dateline-text">YOKOSUKA, Japan, </span>
    Forward-deployed aircraft carrier USS George Washington (CVN 73) hosted Vice Adm. Toshiyuki Ito, commandant, Japan Self-Defense Force (JSDF) Joint Staff College, and more than 60 students, Dec. 17.<br />
<br />
The ship tour and orientation continued to enhance interoperability between George Washington and JSDF.<br />
<br />
"I am excited to see all of you aboard," said Rear Adm. Mark Montgomery, commander, Battle Force 7th Fleet. "Our continued alliance presents a multiplying and compounding effect on our strength."<br />
<br />
JSDF Joint Staff College members were provided a comprehensive tour of George Washington's hangar bay, flight deck and navigation bridge, where the day-to-day operations of a Nimitz-class aircraft carrier were discussed.<br />
<br />
"We are extremely grateful for this opportunity to see George Washington," said Ito. "Our students are able to learn so much more when they see the ship with their own eyes. The lessons we continue to learn from these visits allow George Washington and JSDF to work together more smoothly."<br />
<br />
George Washington and its embarked air wing, Carrier Air Wing (CVW) 5, provide a combat-ready force that protects and defends the collective maritime interest of the U.S. and its partners and allies in the Indo-Asia-Pacific region. <br />
<br />
This article was originally published at: <a href="http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=78367" target="_blank">http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=78367</a><br />
</div>
    </div>
    </main>
</body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>
  
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           18925
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    70000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 88925
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   97825
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            51867
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         60354
<OTHER-SE>                                     (91171)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     97825
<SALES>                                         136500
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                136500
<CGS>                                            95260
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    95260
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 66419
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1333
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (18619)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.00)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-11-00020-CR

AUDREKA LYNN TURNER,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 361st District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 09-03568-CRF-361

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Audreka Turner entered an open guilty plea to the state-jail felony offense of 

theft of property valued at less than $1,500 with two prior theft convictions. The trial 

court assessed a fifteen-month state-jail term. Turner appealed.

Turner’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a motion to withdraw and an 

Anders brief, asserting that she has diligently reviewed the appellate record and that, in 

her opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 
Turner v. State Page 2

18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Turner filed a pro se response; however, she does not raise any 

arguable issues. The State waived the filing of a brief. We will affirm.

In an Anders case, we must, “after a full examination of all the proceedings, [] 

decide whether the case is wholly frivolous.” Anders, 386 U.S. at 744, 87 S.Ct. at 1400; 

accord Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is 

“wholly frivolous” or “without merit” when it “lacks any basis in law or fact.” McCoy 

v. Court of Appeals, 486 U.S. 429, 439 n.10, 108 S.Ct. 1895, 1902 n.10, 100 L.Ed.2d 440

(1988).

We have conducted an independent review of the record, and because we find 

this appeal to be wholly frivolous, we affirm the judgment. Counsel must send Turner

a copy of our decision by certified mail, return receipt requested, at Turner’s last known 

address. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4. Counsel must also notify Turner of her right to file a pro se

petition for discretionary review. Id.; see also Ex parte Owens, 206 S.W.3d 670, 673-74 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2006). We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw, effective upon 

counsel’s compliance with the aforementioned notification requirement as evidenced by 

“a letter [to this Court] certifying [her] compliance.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4.

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Affirmed

Opinion delivered and filed March 21, 2012

Do not publish

[CR25]
#### State ex rel. Joint School District No. 1 of the Town and Village of Prentice, Respondent, vs. Nelson and others, Appellants.

*February 12*

March *11, 1924.*

*State ex rel. Joint School Dist. v. Nyberg, ante,*p. 215, followed.

Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Price county: G. N. Risjord, Circuit Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*Charles F. Smith, Jr.,*of Rhinelander, for the appellants.

*W. K. Parkinson*of Phillips, for the respondents.

A brief was also filed by *John J. Fisher*of Bayfield, as *amicus curice.*

Eschweiler, J.

This case presents the same situation as in *State ex rel. Joint School District v. Nyberg, ante,*p. 215, 197 N. W. 726, and the same ruling must be followed.

*By the.Court.*— Order, affirmed.-
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4.

1 Fed.R.App.P. 4(b).

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-20281

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FRANCISCO JAY POSADA,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-91-CR-0027-3)

December 9, 1999

Before POLITZ, HIGGINBOTHAM, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Francisco Jay Posada appeals the denial of his third motion for

reconsideration of his motion for modification of his sentence under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2). The sentence was imposed following his conviction for aiding and

abetting the distribution of ove r five kilograms of cocaine. Posada did not file a

timely notice of appeal of the denial of his motion. 1 It would be futile to remand

this case to the district court for a determination whether there was ex cusable2 United States v. Golding , 739 F.2d 183 (5 th Cir. 1984).

3 United States v. Cook , 670 F.2d 46 (5 th Cir. 1982).

4 United States v. McEwen

, No. 99-30157 (5 th Cir. Oct. 18, 1999) (unpublished); s ee

also Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215 (5 th Cir. 1983).

2 neglect in Posada’ s filing the late notice of appeal 2 because even if there is

excusable neglect, and the notice of appeal from the order denying Posada’s third

motion for reconsideration is deemed timely, we would be compelled to dismiss

this matter. The district court did not have jurisdiction to entertain Posada’s motion

for reconsideration because the motion itself was untimely filed. 3 The district court

appropriately should have denied Posada’s motion for lack of jurisdiction.

As the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Posada’s motion for

reconsideration in the first instance, this appeal from the district court’s denial of

that motion must be dismissed as frivolous. 4 We caution Posada that any additional

frivolous appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of the full

panoply of sanctions. Posada should review any pending appeals to ensure that

they do not raise arguments that are patently frivolous.

Appeal DISMISSED.
# L_2013203EN.01S00301.xml

| 30.7.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 203/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.7.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 203/s3

---

NOTICE TO READERS

Council Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 of 7 March 2013 on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union

In accordance with Council Regulation (EU) No 216/2013 of 7 March 2013 on the electronic publication of the Official Journal of the European Union (OJ L 69, 13.3.2013, p. 1), as of 1 July 2013, only the electronic edition of the Official Journal shall be considered authentic and shall have legal effect.

Official Journal of the European Union

Where it is not possible to publish the electronic edition of the Official Journal due to unforeseen and exceptional circumstances, the printed edition shall be authentic and shall have legal effect in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 216/2013.

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>    5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                  JAN-30-1999
<CASH>                             35,744
<SECURITIES>                            0         
<RECEIVABLES>                      30,244          
<ALLOWANCES>                            0        
<INVENTORY>                       621,509          
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  703,572     
<PP&E>                            437,834         
<DEPRECIATION>                     66,205     
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  1,483,393            
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>             715,274
<BONDS>                            50,875          
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0         
<PREFERRED>                             0          
<COMMON>                              239      
<OTHER-SE>                        323,769         
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    1,483,393             
<SALES>                         2,507,218    
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                2,537,382           
<CGS>                           1,786,231    
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   1,786,231          
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  683,293   
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0          
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 15,253       
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    52,605    
<INCOME-TAX>                       18,775              
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                33,830        
<DISCONTINUED>                          0          
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0         
<CHANGES>                               0          
<NET-INCOME>                       33,830     
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        1.47 
<EPS-DILUTED>                        1.40   
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 3 (Thursday, January 8, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Page S181]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

              APPOINTMENT OF ACTING PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will please read a communication to 
the Senate from the President pro tempore (Mr. Byrd).
  The legislative clerk read the following letter:

                                                      U.S. Senate,

                                        President pro tempore,

                                  Washington, DC, January 8, 2009.

     To the Senate:
       Under the provisions of rule I, paragraph 3, of the 
     Standing Rules of the Senate, I hereby appoint the Honorable 
     Mark L. Pryor, a Senator from the State of Arkansas, to 
     perform the duties of the Chair.
                                                   Robert C. Byrd,
                                            President pro tempore.

  Mr. PRYOR thereupon assumed the chair as Acting President pro 
tempore.

                          ____________________
```
Exhibit
10.9


 





 





4
August 2020


 


The
Directors


GBS Inc.


Level
9, 85 Castlereagh Street


Sydney,
NSW 2000


Australia


 


Dear
Directors


 




Confirmation
of Financial Support


 


In
order for the directors of GBS Inc. and its controlled entities (“the Group”), to be in a position to support the
use of the going concern basis in preparing the financial report of the Group, which means that the Group is expected to be able
to pay its debts as and when they fall due and continue in operation without any intention or necessity to liquidate or otherwise
wind up its operations, we hereby give assurance to the directors and officers of the Group of the intention of The IQ Group Global
Ltd (being one of the ultimate holding entities), to financially support the Group in the future, as follows:


 


The
IQ Group Global Ltd hereby acknowledge to the directors of the Group that, The IQ Group Global Ltd accepts responsibility of providing
and undertakes to provide sufficient financial assistance to the Group in relation to operating obligations as and when it is
needed to enable the Group to continue its operations;


 


This
financial assistance includes


 


	 	-	The
    IQ Group Global Ltd not seeking repayment of any intercompany loans or payables balances due from the Group except to the
    extent that funds become available; and
	 	 	 
	 	-	The
    guarantee is irrevocable for at least 12 months from the date of signing of the financial reports for 30 June 2020. The IQ
    Group Global Ltd and the Group undertake to fully invoke the provisions of this agreement in the event that the financial
    support from the guarantor is required.


 


Signed
for and behalf of The IQ Group Global Ltd


 





 


Dr
George Syrmalis


 


Group
Chief Executive Officer & Director


 


 


 






 


The
iQ Group Global Ltd.


ABN
26 149 731 644


Level
9, 85 Castlereagh Street, Sydney, NSW, 2000


P
02 8239 5400 I W theiqgroupglobal com
EXHIBIT 32.2



Certification of Chief Financial Officer
                     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
                     As Adopted Pursuant to
                     Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with this Quarterly Report of Mattson Technology, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended July 3, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), Andy Moring, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)	The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.



|Date: August 5, 2011 | /s/ ANDY MORING
                     Andy MoringExecutive Vice President — Finance and Chief
                   Financial Officer
|-------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---
Exhibit 99.2


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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Westell Technologies, 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,
Nicholas C. Hindman, Chief Financial 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 based on 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
     as of and for the periods covered in the Report.



/s/ Nicholas C. Hindman
Nicholas C. Hindman
Chief Financial Officer
November 14, 2002