alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Amendment to Offer Letter for Thomas Waechter executed July 21, 2008



 Exhibit 10.23 
 

 
  

			
		  	JDS Uniphase Corporation 430 N. McCarthy Boulevard
 Milpitas, CA 95035
 www.jdsu.com


 July 21, 2008 
 Tom Waechter 
 C/O JDSU 
 430 N. McCarthy Blvd

 Milpitas, CA 95035 
  

	 	RE:	Terms of Employment Amendment 

 Dear Tom, 
 Further to our recent discussions, this letter will outline certain agreements relative to the terms of your employment. 
 We have determined that the circumstances surrounding your principle work location have changed since your date of hire and as originally contemplated in your offer
letter dated October 11, 2007 (the “Offer Letter”). In particular, relocation to Maryland is no longer necessary in order for you to perform your job duties and responsibilities. Instead the Company has determined that a temporary
domestic assignment to Maryland for approximately 24 months will enable you to perform the duties for which you where hired. Upon the conclusion of this approximately 24 month period we will review whether the temporary assignment should be
extended. 
 As a result of this change in circumstances, on June 17, 2008 the Compensation Committee of Board of Directors approved the following:

  

	 	1.	In accordance with the terms and conditions of the Company’s Commuter Policy you will receive a commuter allowance in the amount of $10,145 (gross) for up to 24 months, paid
monthly, in order to offset the cost of temporary living in Maryland; 

  

	 	2.	You will receive a one time allowance of $5,600 to offset the cost of rental car(s) and the roundtrip shipment of your personal vehicle to and from Maryland.


  

	 	3.	You will be entitled to a lump sum bonus of $265,000 to offset other costs associated with your transition and housing, which such bonus shall be paid upon your request at any time
prior to December 31, 2008. 

 For clarity, the provisions of this letter shall supersede those in the Offer Letter pertaining to
relocation to Maryland including Option One and Option Two as described therein. 
  

 Page 1 of 2 








 

 
 In order to acknowledge that you have read and understood the terms and conditions of this letter, please sign this letter
where indicated below and return it to me. Please keep a copy for your own records. 
  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	


	 Brett Hooper
 Senior Vice President, Human Resources




 I have read and understand this amended letter. I acknowledge that this letter supersedes all prior or
concurrent agreements and representations concerning its subject matter, and may not be modified in any way except in a writing executed by an authorized agent of JDSU. 
  

					
	  	 		 	  
	Tom Waechter	 		 	Date

  

 Page 2 of 2
# CE2004084EN.01056701.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/567 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/567

---

(2004/C 84 E/0644)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0292/04

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 February 2004)

Subject:   Ship-building in Italy

Subject:

In Trieste, Italy in recent years, shipyard capacity has increased substantially and orders have been received for ships in a way which prompts observers to suspect that operators there may have received State shipyard subsidies in a manner which differs from the practice in other EU Member States and on more favourable terms. Has the Commission investigated whether the Italian State is paying shipyard subsidies on the same basis as other EU Member States, or whether different, more favourable conditions apply there? If the conditions are more favourable, this distorts both competition in shipbuilding and subcontracting of work on ships.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 2004)

(17 March 2004)

In the EU, the aid to ship-building is regulated, since 1 January 2004, by the Framework on State aid to shipbuilding (1) that replaced Council Regulation (EC) No 1540/98 of 29 June 1998 establishing new rules on aid to shipbuilding (expired on 31 December 2003) (2).

1

2

Italy has adopted a number of schemes based on the (EC) No 1540/98 Shipbuilding Regulation. These schemes were notified and approved by the Commission.

The Commission is not aware of any unwarranted applications or any illegal aid granted by the Italian State to the ship-building companies.

---

(1)  OJ C 317, 30.12.2003.

1

(2)  OJ L 202, 18.7.1998.

2

---
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 13-2651

___________________________

Frank Dean Teague

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Lindee Rice, RN, Clinical Coordinator,ScottCountyJail Correctional HealthServices

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines

____________

 Submitted: March 20, 2014

Filed: April 8, 2014

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BYE, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.

Frank Teague appeals the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment

1

in his pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Lindee Rice, a nurse, who he claims was

The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, United States District Judge for the

1

Southern District of Iowa.
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs when he experienced dangerously

low blood sugar levels related to his diabetes, while he was in jail. Upon careful de

novo review, we conclude that the summary judgment record established beyond

genuine dispute that Rice did not deliberately disregard Teague’s serious medical

needs, and we therefore conclude that summary judgment was properly granted in

Rice’s favor. See Meuir v. Greene Cnty. Jail Emps., 487 F.3d 1115, 1118 (8th Cir.

2007) (grant ofsummary judgment reviewed de novo); Schaub v. VonWald, 638 F.3d

905, 914 (8th Cir. 2011) (to prevail on Eighth Amendment claim for deprivation of

medical care, inmate must show defendant knew of, but deliberately disregarded,

objectively serious medical need); see also Hartsfield v. Colburn, 371 F.3d 454, 456-

57 (8th Cir. 2004) (pretrial detainees’ claims are evaluated under Due Process Clause

rather than Eighth Amendment; however, same deliberate-indifference framework

applies to inadequate-medical-care claims under either constitutional provision).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11

Linkage Solutions, Inc
Computation of Net Income per Common Share
Years Ended December 31, 1996, 1997 and 1998
(In Thousands except per share data)

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                                                                December 31,
                                                                     ----------------------------------------
                                                                        1996            1997          1998
                                                                        ----            ----          ----
<S>                                                                <C>             <C>            <C> 
BASIC NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE                             
   Net Income as reported....................................      $1,442,836      $1,929,766     $9,904,908
   Preferential Distribution.................................               -               -      6,339,684 
                                                                   ----------      ----------     ---------- 
   Net Income Available to Common Stockholders...............       1,442,836       1,929,766      3,565,224 
   Weighted average number of common shares outstanding:      
     Common Stock............................................       6,143,200       6,300,919      6,327,279
                                                                   ----------      ----------     ---------- 
     Basic net income per common share.......................      $     0.23      $     0.31     $     0.56
                                                                   ==========      ==========     ==========
                                                              
DILUTED NET INCOME PER COMMON SHARE                           
   Net Income as reported....................................      $1,442,836      $1,929,766     $9,904,908
   Preferential Distribution.................................               -               -      6,339,684 
                                                                   ----------      ----------     ---------- 
   Net Income Available to Common Stockholders...............       1,442,836       1,929,766      3,565,224 
   Weighted average number of common shares outstanding:      
     Common Stock............................................       6,143,200       6,300,919      6,327,279
     Effect of Stock options.................................           5,412          23,230         47,747
                                                                   ----------      ----------     ---------- 
        Total................................................       6,148,612       6,324,149      6,375,026
                                                                   ----------      ----------     ---------- 
     Diluted net income per common share.....................      $     0.23      $     0.31     $     0.56
                                                                   ==========      ==========     ==========
</TABLE>
MEMO I NAME OR TITLE 

3 

REMARKS 

USE FOR APPROYllLS, D/SllPPROYllLS, 

CONCURR£NC£S, OR SIMILAR ACTIONS 

CIRCULATE 

COORDINATION 

FILE 

INFORMATION 

.... 

NECESSARY ACflON 

NOTE AND RETURN 

~~~-

ffU-~~~~ 

~~cs~ 

'S ) c.c. t) 'i . 

pproved for Release by NSA 

n 02-06-2014 pursuantto E.O. 

3526 

FROM NAME OR TITLE 

ORGANIZATION AND LOCAT 

DD FORM 9 5 Replaces DA AGO Form 895, l Apr 48, and AFHQ I FEB 50 Form 12. 10 Nov 67, which may tie used.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 Each of the undersigned officers of Intelligent Systems Corporation (the
Company) hereby certifies that, to his or her knowledge, the Companys
quarterly report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004 (the
Report), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: August 13, 2004
    
    /s/
    
    J. Leland StrangeJ. Leland StrangeChief Executive Officer
 /s/
    
    Bonnie L. HerronBonnie L. HerronChief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1613 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1613

To require the Secretary of the Treasury to convene a panel of citizens 
 to make a recommendation to the Secretary regarding the likeness of a 
         woman on the ten dollar bill, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 18, 2015

 Mrs. Shaheen introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
    referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require the Secretary of the Treasury to convene a panel of citizens 
 to make a recommendation to the Secretary regarding the likeness of a 
         woman on the ten dollar bill, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. CITIZENS PANEL RELATING TO THE LIKENESS OF A WOMAN TO BE 
              INCLUDED ON THE FACE OF THE $10 FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE.

    The 8th undesignated paragraph of section 16 of the Federal Reserve 
Act (12 U.S.C. 418) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
sentence: ``The Secretary of the Treasury shall convene a panel of 
private citizens of the United States to advise and make 
recommendations to the Secretary regarding the likeness of a woman to 
appear on the face of $10 Federal reserve notes. In carrying out the 
requirements of the preceding sentence, each of the Secretary and the 
panel shall consider and weigh input provided by the American 
people.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                            256,970
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   2,103,973
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (13,500)
<INVENTORY>                                     3,720,125
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                6,340,348
<PP&E>                                          5,428,268
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,002,803)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 12,445,266
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           3,458,930
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                           38,225
<OTHER-SE>                                      4,633,753
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   12,445,266
<SALES>                                         7,093,200
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                7,105,032
<CGS>                                           4,293,931
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   2,299,693
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                201,646
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   309,762
<INCOME-TAX>                                      116,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               193,262
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                      193,262
<EPS-BASIC>                                           .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         .05



</TABLE>
Order entered April 22, 2013

In The



## Court of Appeals

**Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 12

- 01181

- CV

MIKE RAWLINGS, MAYOR , ET AL, Appellant s

V.

TIMOTEO F. GONZALEZ ET AL., Appellee s

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court

Dallas Coun ty, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 12

- 09605

- J



### O RDER

Appellees’ request for oral argument is GRANTED

.

/s/ MICHAEL J. O'NEILL

JUSTICE
# CE2004084EN.01044501.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/445 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/445

---

(2004/C 84 E/0519)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0717/04

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 March 2004)

Subject:   Johne's disease

Subject:

What plans does the Commission have to address the animal welfare issues posed by Johne's disease in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 2004)

(1 April 2004)

The Commission is obviously concerned at the serious animal health and welfare issues posed by the occurrence of Johne's disease (paratuberculosis) within the EU.

With a view to increasing the available scientific knowledge, a number of specific research projects have already been funded under the Community's Framework Programmes to investigate this disease. These have considered aspects such as improved diagnostic methods, epidemiology and risk assessment, the role of wildlife in disease transmission and management tools to control the disease in domestic ruminants.

The Commission has also recently requested the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to issue a scientific opinion on the risk of transmission of the causative organism Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis via bovine semen.

The Commission will carefully analyse the outcome of this work and ongoing scientific advances with a view to taking appropriate steps to safeguard the health and welfare of animals within the EU.

In addition, it should be noted that programmes for the control and/or eradication of Johne's disease are in principle eligible for Community co-financing within the framework of Council Decision 90/424/EEC of 26 June 1990 on expenditure in the veterinary field (1). However, to date, no Member State has submitted such a programme to the Commission for consideration.

1

---

(1)  OJ L 224, 18.8.1990.

1

---
·-·-.~-.,...-!""."'"'·~~-~. 

- ...• .,.....·~--·--~--.------~---~---~--~-~~......,,_,..,.,~,.-°"'~~...-. o .• .. ~ ~,,.,,. ··"""""-~""'·'~---""'---·~"-.,....,_,""'~·-.:n:""'"''·""'"'.,...,,..""· --~-~''"'·"'~""'··;---. -~-~ ... ~)'""'.I"-· ""·~.,,,.,"P"!'"~"""""·-. """·'""'"i.·O'"">-;;;;;;;, ~o;'i' .. •~,,., ............. A, ......... 8.,,,,..S,;;o;;.: _,.,_ .... ¥.Z:;fii.E.!i" .. !iii,Ollfr;;;;i~ ... li·... 4iiiii. jjjju;;;;;;.A $ .... F""
1

 The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2751

___________

Daniel B. Johnson, *

*

Petitioner - Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Dean Mooney, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Respondent - Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: January 10, 2007

 Filed: January 23, 2007 

___________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

The district court1

 dismissed Daniel B. Johnson’s petition for a writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244 as untimely. We affirm.

In a bench trial spanning February and March 1998, Johnson was convicted of

four criminal sexual-conduct offenses between 1985 and 1988. In 1997, the state of

Minnesota moved to have him civilly committed as a sexually dangerous person

(SDP) and a sexual psychopathic personality (SPP). The laws under which Johnson
-2-

was committed did not provide for a jury trial. Johnson demanded one under the

Minnesota Constitution, but the trial court denied the motion. After his conviction,

the state court ordered Johnson to be indeterminately committed as both an SDP and

an SPP. Johnson appealed the commitment to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which

affirmed. The Minnesota Supreme Court denied review on May 18, 1999. Johnson

did not petition the United States Supreme Court on this direct appeal.

 In August 2003, Johnson filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in state

court. Johnson’s state habeas petitions failed, as did his petition for a writ of certiorari

from the United States Supreme Court.

On May 27, 2005, Johnson filed the current habeas petition in federal district

court. In dismissing his habeas petition as untimely, the district court held the time

between the conclusion of Johnson’s direct appeals and his application for

post-conviction relief in state court counted against the § 2244 one-year statute of

limitations.

Under § 2244, a petitioner has one year after his direct appeals are concluded

to file his federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). On appeal,

Johnson argues his filing of a state habeas petition should have reset the limitations

clock. 

We rejected this argument in Painter v. Iowa, 247 F.3d 1255 (8th Cir. 2001),

holding that “the time between the date that direct review of a conviction is completed

and the date that an application for state post-conviction relief is filed counts against

the one-year period.” Id. at 1256. The statute of limitations is tolled by the proper

filing of an application for post-conviction relief, but the district court correctly

included the period after the conclusion of direct review and before Johnson’s state
-3-

 habeas application was filed in its calculation of the § 2244 time bar, see id. Thus,

Johnson’s habeas petition was properly dismissed as untimely. 

The judgment is affirmed.

______________________________
• 

Dean Nina li••• 

Funter 1,ollee:e 

6<1fi ra.rk AYentUt 

Ue'W '1ork 21. N. Y. 

REF ID:A72690 ~ 

I e -woree than you in d•laJ1ng rt!tpU.••· .A:tto:r all 70u wue 

just JJUttillf" oft the odious ta.ak or tilling out the l-h~. A.11 l 

hc.d to do vaa an8"81' 70ur J ettet ot ~OYellber ~. Well here r.o••· 

Al Whitoman llU!t.s tts fine. bu\ 1 thtnk 'lo.11111)" ls a little 

l~·e-,,,a.r.m on him. At any rate he filled out a PBS laat rear and 

it '\') gtill lJe~ proa8aised. V,. t. Klee is conaidered to be • 

Tery pqor pro11tJMS\ b;r Albert.. Thi• tm the thl~ 1 should not have 

delti.yed tellin~ 70u abo1Jt :for eo long. Richard. !lanehf'1el4 and 

~o l'r~e bo'11 9ound. 111 .. i!' f!:tlod. proepech. Th• latter la 

'P&l"t1cul arly Alttract1To dn<"e the CNlbrl.dge Air Ji'orce Poaea.J"oh 

Center 'Will vrobabl.7 Pf13' hlff way. I ihought ! atllll'ered your quee-

'tlon about i'ul""ey when I pointed out that we had intormall7 d.•c1ded 

not to anY. hit:l beoaee ve were 1n1re he would be bua1. ot oour1• 

1t he wiould eome out io SCAH and at•Y p11t he would be inYaluable. 

Albert and. 1 'bel18'N that 141lliam Piere• ct SC.AMI· 195'.), Y&a a 

eomplet• waehou•. I 'h1nk ":at9hal.l Fall la blinded by the !act 

that ha thiuke \ha\ anyone who work• ln t1n1te pro,1eot1T• plan.ea 

voul.d be inTalu.able. I ~·' vta forget all a'bou\ tt.erae. 

•1e are folloViDc Up your ~ation• aD.d Hnding :reraonal 

Rletor7 StatetaentB to Tal'iouo people but )"OU will hear about th«" 

\bro~ oop1e• of the l•\ter"' ve eend \ho. We are altao •eudlng 

cop1ea to Dea Mt\. 

,.1. th ~st vtmhae for e Vocy Neny Chrht11aa and a Il'app:y New 

1-.r, I am 

ac: 'T. FriedJalin 

J. lJ. SVift 

li.. _; • L ~IM.Ea 

Obi.et 

Mathernat1ea1 ?ea~ niT!t1on 

@'pp roved for Release by NSA on 02-12-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a