alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         866,183
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                91,381
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  2,532,428
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       5,227,122
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     22,758,458
<ALLOWANCE>                                    286,626
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              33,856,646
<DEPOSITS>                                  26,900,275
<SHORT-TERM>                                   550,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            130,400
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,268,971
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              33,856,646
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                888,630
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              226,311
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                63,912
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             1,178,853
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             493,102
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             506,114
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          672,740
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  165,068
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                666,706
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (97,214)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (97,214)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.14)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.14)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.24
<LOANS-NON>                                     47,025
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               133,342
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   11,924
<RECOVERIES>                                       140
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              286,626
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        286,626
        

</TABLE>
IA 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 20 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to limit 

the number of consecutive terms that a Member of Congress may serve. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 5, 2017 

Mr. DUFFY submitted the following joint resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United 

States to limit the number of consecutive terms that 

a Member of Congress may serve. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives 

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two3 thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con5 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all 

6 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 

7 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several 

8 States within seven years after the date of its submission 

9 for ratification: 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•HJ 20 IH 

1 ‘‘ARTICLE— 

2 ‘‘SECTION 1. No person who has been a Senator for 

3 two full consecutive terms shall again be a Senator until 

4 the date that is one year after the end of such second 

5 full consecutive term. 

6 ‘‘SECTION 2. No person who has been a Representa7 tive for six full consecutive terms shall again be a Rep8 resentative until the date that is one year after the end 

9 of the sixth full consecutive term. 

10 ‘‘SECTION 3. For the purposes of this article, any 

11 term that began before the date of the ratification of this 

12 article shall not be included in determining the number 

13 of full consecutive terms that a person has been a Senator 

14 or Representative.’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK3GLQ082PROD with BILLS
Document

Exhibit 10.1

SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE
ENTEGRIS, INC. 401(k) SAVINGS AND PROFIT SHARING PLAN
(2017 Restatement)
THIS SECOND AMENDMENT to the Entegris, Inc. 401(k) Savings and Profit Sharing Plan (2017 Restatement) (the "Plan") is made and entered into this      day of February    , 2020, by Entegris, Inc. (the "Principal Sponsor").




WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the Principal Sponsor maintains the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Principal Sponsor desires to amend the Plan to revise certain eligibility provisions thereunder.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Principal Sponsor does hereby amend the Plan, effective as of January 1, 2020, as follows:
1.
Section 2.1 of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following:


"2.1.    General Eligibility Rule. Each employee shall become a Participant on the date the employee is employed in Recognized Employment. A Participant whose employment with the Employer terminates and who subsequently is reemployed by the Employer shall reenter the Plan as a Participant on the date of the Participant's return to Recognized Employment."
2.
Except as specifically amended hereby, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect as prior to this Second Amendment.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this indenture to be executed on the date first written above.




                                ENTEGRIS, INC.


						
	

By:
	/s/ Gregory B. Graves
	

Title:
	CFO











Exhibit 10.1

ATTEST:


			
	






						
	Title:	
		

[CORPORATE SEAL]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 18-1057

Filed June 5, 2019

STATE OF IOWA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

TORRENZO MICHAEL GREEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Lars G. Anderson

(guilty plea) and Mary E. Chicchelly (sentencing), Judges.

Torrenzo Green appeals his conviction for possession of marijuana with 

intent to deliver. AFFIRMED.

Jeffrey L. Powell of Powell & McCullough, PLC, Coralville, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Louis S. Sloven, Assistant Attorney 

General, for appellee.

Considered by Potterfield, P.J., Doyle, J., and Mahan, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2019).
2

MAHAN, Senior Judge.

Torrenzo Green pled guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, 

in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(1)(d) (2017). As part of Green’s plea 

deal, the State agreed to dismiss a related class “D” felony charge and recommend 

Green receive a suspended sentence. Following a hearing, the district court 

accepted his plea, entered judgment, and imposed sentence. 

Green now appeals, claiming his trial counsel was ineffective for allowing 

him to plead guilty without “fully investigat[ing] the facts surrounding Green’s 

charges” and “fully ascertain[ing his] mental competence to execute an effective 

plea of guilty.” The record before us lacks any basis to evaluate Green’s claim. 

Therefore, we affirm his conviction and preserve his ineffective-assistance claim 

for possible postconviction-relief proceedings. See State v. Harris, 919 N.W.2d 

753, 754 (Iowa 2018) (“If the record is insufficient to allow for a review on direct 

appeal, we do not reach the issue on direct appeal and allow the defendant to raise 

the claim in a separate postconviction-relief action.”).

AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 9 (Thursday, January 15, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Page S631]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                   ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 10 A.M. TOMORROW

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come 
before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned 
under the previous order.
  There being no objection, the Senate, at 8:32 p.m., adjourned until 
Friday, January 16, 2009, at 10 a.m.
```
#### STATE *v.*JOHN HAWKINS.

An appellant, if not allowed by the Court to appeal without security, must file his appeal bond at the term at which the case was tried, or the appeal will be dismissed.

Indictment, for a wilful injury to a dwelling house, tried at Pali Term, 1872, of the Superior Court of Edgecombe county, before his Honor, *Judge Moore.*

On the trial below, the defendant was found guilty, and the Court pronounced judgment, from which the defendant appealed. There was no appeal bond filed nor any transcript sent to this Court at the term ; nor did the defendant file an appeal bond until the 1st day of December, 1871,' when the case was sent up.

The foregoing are all the facts, necessary to an understanding the decision of this court.

*Stamps,*for defendant.

*Attorney General*Ilargrove, contra.

Reade, J.

The defendant was convicted at Fall Term, 1872, and prayed an appeal, which was granted upon condition, that he enter into bond in the sum of [$100 with surety. Nothing further appears until December, 1874, when he files a bond with surety for $250, reciting that he had been convictd at Fall Term, 1874, and appealed, &c.

The Attorney General moves in this Court, to dismiss the case, upon the ground that the appeal was not prosecuted in apt time. The motion is allowed.

When an appeal is taken, it is to the *next*term of the Supreme Court; and if not prosecuted by the default of the appellant, the appeal is lost; and if without the default of the appellant, his remedy is by application in apt time, for a writ of *Certiorari,*or for leave to docket the case.

Judgment here against the surety upon the bond, for costs.

PeR Cüeiam. Appeal dismissed.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 9 (Thursday, January 15, 2009)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E97]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

    CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2009

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                          HON. DANNY K. DAVIS

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                      Wednesday, January 14, 2009

  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong, 
unwavering, and steadfast support of the reauthorization of SCHIP to 
provide healthcare for millions of uninsured children. SCHIP is a 
critical safety net for children. As Chief Justice Thurgood Marshall 
once said, ``The measure of a country's greatness is its ability to 
retain compassion in times of crisis.'' Providing healthcare for low-
income children, especially during this economic crisis, reflects a 
commitment to the least among us as well as sound economic policy. A 
healthy child is prepared for school and life. A healthy child does not 
require costly emergency room visits. I applaud House leaders for 
including mental health parity and dental coverage for children.
  In Fiscal Year 2007, SCHIP provided health care to over 345,000 
children in Illinois. Unfortunately, due to overwhelming need, Illinois 
faced a shortfall in federal spending last year. This bill does much to 
address this gap. Specifically, in addition to preserving coverage for 
the 7 million children currently in the program, this bill expands 
coverage to another 4 million children in need.
  I want to briefly mention the efforts of Chicago Public Schools in 
helping low income families overcome many of the barriers that often 
prevent them from enrolling in SCHIP. The Children and Family Benefits 
Unit assisted approximately 60 schools in a recent 12 month period, 
helping over 4,200 families' complete applications to enroll into the 
Illinois CHIP, including Medicaid. I am proud of this effort in 
Chicago, and I am pleased that this bill will continue to support such 
programs.
  In closing, this bill will provide much-needed health care for low-
income children in Chicago, Illinois, and the nation, and I look 
forward to this bill being signed into law in the near future.

                          ____________________
```
EXHIBIT 32

Certification of Periodic Financial Report

James C.
Holly and Kenneth R. Taylor hereby certify as follows:

1. They are the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer,
respectively, of Sierra Bancorp.

2. The Form 10-K of Sierra Bancorp for the year ended December 31, 2009 complies with
the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and the information contained in the report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of Sierra Bancorp.



|               |  |  |  |                                                                                               
|-------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|March 12, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/ James C. Holly                                                                            
|Date           |  |  |  | James C. Holly President & Chief Executive Officer                                            
|               |  | 
|March 12, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/ Kenneth R. Taylor                                                                         
|Date           |  |  |  | Kenneth R. Taylor Executive
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer & Chief Accounting Officer
#### In the Matter of the Liquidation of Union Indemnity Insurance Company of New York. Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York, as Liquidator, Appellant; James Heary, Respondent.

[631 NYS2d 39]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered April 5, 1994, which, in a liquidation proceeding under Insurance Law article 74, *inter alia,*rejected the Superintendent’s disallowance of the subject claim as untimely filed, and directed that the claim be given preferred status, unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Prior to November 28, 1986, the extended deadline by which the insured was required to file a proof of claim, the liquidator received the summons and verified complaint and retained a *469law firm to defend the insured and the law firm served an answer. We agree with the Referee’s determination, confirmed by the IAS Court, that the verified complaint constitutes substantial compliance with the requirements of Insurance Law § 7433 (a) (1) and that the claim should be deemed timely filed. This case is distinguishable from *Jason v Superintendent of Ins. of State of N. Y.*(49 NY2d 716). While in neither case did the insured file timely proof of claim, here the insurer received the substantial equivalent of a proof of claim prior to the insured’s extended deadline for filing. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 10406 Conference Calendar

**United States of America,**
Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus
**Darrell Anthony Donaldson,**
Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas No. 5:19

- CR

- 115

- 1

Before **Smith, Stewart,** and **Higginson,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

The attorney appointed to represent Darrell Donaldson has moved to withdraw and has filed a brief per Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Donaldson has filed

a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief , relevant portions of the

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opin

ion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 9, 2021 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-10406 Document: 00515816030 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/09/2021No. 20

- 10406

2 record , and Donaldson ’s response . We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accord

ingly, the motion to withdraw is **GRA NTED**  , counsel is excused from fur

ther responsibilities herein, and the appeal is **DISMISSED**

. See **5th Cir. R** 

**.** 42. 2. Case: 20-10406 Document: 00515816030 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/09/2021
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 21

- 00368

- CV

L ATRENDA S. C OLEMAN

, Appellant

V

.

I VAN D UANE C OLEMAN

, J R

. , Appellee §

§

§

§ O n Appeal from the 325th District Co u rt

of Tarrant County ( 325

- 694422

- 21 )

October 13, 2022

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Walker

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was error in part of the trial court’s final divorce de c ree . It is o rdered that the trial

court ’ s final d ivorce de c ree is affirmed in part and reversed in part. We affirm that

portion of the trial court’s final divorce de c ree re garding the dissolution of the

marriage and the division of the p r o perty and debts . We reverse that portion of the

trial court’s final div orce de c ree regarding the SAPCR re lated to the child, and remand

this case to th e trial court for further proceedings on the requisite SAPCR

.

It is further ordered that all parties shall bear their own costs of t his appeal, for

which let execution issue.SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Brian Walker Justice Brian Walker
<PAGE>
 
Spacetec IMC and Labtec Inc. Complete
Merger

VANCOUVER, Wash., Feb 17/PRNewswire/ -- Spacetec IMC Corp. (Nasdaq: SIMC - news)
                                                                    ----   ----
and Labtec, Inc. (Nasdaq: LABT - news) announced that in a special meeting, 
                          ----   ----
Spacetec stockholders approved all matters related to the merger which was 
announced October 21, 1998. The stockholders approved issuance of Spacetec stock
and other consideration to Labtec Stockholders, a reverse 1 for 3 stock split 
and the election of a new Board of Directors. The stockholders also approved a 
corporate name change to Labtec Inc. and the post split shares will trade on the
NASDAQ under the symbol LABT beginning Friday, February 19, 1999.

Marc Leder, Co-Chairman of the Board of Labtec said, "We are pleased to have 
completed the merger and are excited about bringing the Spacetec 3D Interactive 
controller technology to the consumer markets through Labtec. We believe there
will be significant advantages in integrating the companies."

About Labtec

Labtec offers a broad array of products including computer speakers, subwoofers,
PC voice access microphones, headphones and accessories, 3D input controllers 
and 3D game pads. Labtec's strategy is to offer a growing assortment of products
based on proprietary technology through multiple channels of distribution. 
Labtec currently sells its products to most of the largest and fastest growing 
retailers, master distributors, and original equipment manufacturers with all 
channels served on a worldwide basis. For additional information, please call 
360-896-2000, or visit the Labtec Web site at www.labtec.com.
                                              --------------

Risk Factors

This release, as it relates to product announcements and other company 
announcements, contains forward-looking statements which are made pursuant to 
the safe harbor provisions of the private securities litigation reform act of 
1995. Investors are cautioned that all forward-looking statements involve risks 
related to the development of technology and manufacturing capabilities, market 
acceptance of and demand for the company's products, entrance into the consumer 
market, impact of competitive products and pricing, dependence on third-party 
suppliers and intellectual property rights. Investors are directed to the risk 
factors section and other information contained on the company's 1998 form 10-K 
and 10-Q, copies of which are available from the company without charge, for a 
more complete description of the risks and uncertainties relating to the 
material in this release as well as other aspects of the company's business.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

TRACY NIXON,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2022-2183

______________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of Texas in No. 2:19-cv-00287-JRG-RSP, 

Chief Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Tracy Nixon appeals from the district court’s dismissal 

of his complaint and moves for leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis. In a prior attempt to appeal from this suit, we 

explained that Mr. Nixon’s complaint failed “to present a 

non-frivolous claim arising under the patent laws” and that 

his case was “outside of our limited jurisdiction.” Nixon v. 

Gen. Motors Corp., No. 2021-1120, slip. op. at 2 (Fed. Cir. 

Case: 22-2183 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 10/19/2022
2 NIXON v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION

Jan. 21, 2021) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Nothing has changed that would warrant a different 

conclusion here. We therefore transfer this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 to the appropriate regional circuit, 

the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, this appeal and all transmittals are transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. 

October 19, 2022

 Date

FOR THE COURT

s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 22-2183 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 10/19/2022