alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, Plaintiff - Appe lle e , v. VIC TOR YOVANNY AVILA PAYAN, a .k.a . Vic tor Avila , De fe nda

nt - Appe lla

nt. No. 13-50159

D.C . No. 2:13-c r-00060-R GK M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia R . Ga ry Kla usne r, Distric t

Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d M arc h 10, 2014 ** B e fore : PR EGER SON, LEAVY, a n d M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s . Vic tor Yova

nny Avila Pay an a ppe a ls from

the distric t

c ourt’ s judgm e nt a

nd c ha lle nge s his guilty -ple a c onvic tion a

nd the 27-m onth se nte nc e im p ose d for be ing an ille ga l a lie n found in the Unite d State s following de porta tion, in viola

tion of 8 

# FIL ED MAR 13 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).U.S.C . § 1326. Pursua nt to Ande rs v . C

alifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Avila Pay an’ s c ounse l ha s file d a brie f stating tha

t the re are no grounds for re lie f, a long with a m otion to withdra

w a s c o unse l of re c o rd. W e have provide d Avila Pay an the o pportunity

to file a pro se supple m e nta l brie f. No pro se supple m e n ta l brie f or answe ring brie f ha s be e n file d. Avila Pay an wa i ve d his right to a ppe a l his c onvic t ion, with the e xc e ption of an a p pe a l ba s e d on a

c la i m t hat his ple a

wa s involunta

ry . He a lso wa ive d the right to a p pe a l his se nte nc e , e x c e pt a s to thedistric t c ourt’ s de te rm ination of his c rim ina l history c ate gory . Our indepe nde nt re vie w of the re c ord pursua nt to Pe nson v . Ohio , 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), disc lose s no a rgua ble grounds for re lie f a s to e ithe r the v a lidity

of the ple a or the c rim ina l history c ate gory c a l c ulat e d by

the c o urt. W e , the re fore , a ffirm a s to thoseissue s. W e dism iss there m a i nde r of the a ppe a l in light of the

va lid a ppe a l wa ive r. Se e Unite d State s v . W atson , 582 F.3d 974, 988 (9th C ir. 2009). C ounse l’ s m otion to withdra w is G RANT E D. AFFIRM E D in par t; DISM ISSE D in par t.

1 3 - 5 0 1 5 9 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10(k)
FOR THE PERIOD ENDING JANUARY 2, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1999             JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-04-1998             DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-02-1999             JAN-03-1998
<CASH>                                       3,686,457               2,286,583
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0                       0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,454,706                 383,051
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             7,846,309              15,001,808
<PP&E>                                       3,597,563               2,975,175
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,308,683               1,631,961
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,135,189              16,425,233
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,682,522                 727,672
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                        77,042                  73,622
<OTHER-SE>                                           0                       0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,135,189              16,425,233
<SALES>                                        678,000                 725,374
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               678,000                 725,374
<CGS>                                          278,251                 361,536
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,540,517               6,568,893
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              83,569                 106,401
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (7,674,009)             (5,855,619)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                               (7,674,009)             (5,855,619)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.02)                  (0.87)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.02)                  (0.87)
        

</TABLE>
REF e 

DISPOSITION FORM 

FILE NO. I SUBJEC~ 

TO Chiefs, Statr Divisions FROM 

an1 Ottices 

cs 

CATION (If anvl 

DATE 15 Sep 4 COMMENT NO. 1 

Lt. Colo Pa.tterSM, 60455 

1,. The Direct01"9 8 Monthly start Conteence vi.U be held en Tueaday, 28 Sep ~4 

at 1030 in the Post. 'nleater, AHS. 

2o Mr. Walter Sharp o~ the Machine DiTi.eion vll1 !puk on "Machines in the 

Serrl.ce ot Ceyptanalysis." His talk will incl.me descriptions o? th-o m1J.chinl')s t!(t 

ha.Wi and the uns ve makl! o.t tha2 the II*! ma.chi.Ms, the 111ach1nms poculiat" tA 

this Agenc,r, and the ccaput6ra. He vJ.11 conclude vi th eome rel\!J:"ks alwa-dt 11&.ehin<MJ 

ot the Mureo Mro Sharp'e talk will be illustrated. 

OST 

Rear .Adll1.Nl., U. So Ne.vy 

Chiet ot 3ta.tt 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 05-28-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 

DD 1 t~~M50 9 6 REPLACES NMI: FORM 96. 1 OCT 48. WHICH MAY BE usi:p, 16--6-i801-3 "f:r U S GOVEIH4ME:NT PRINTING Off'ICS
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1895 

To amend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act for purposes of making 

claims under such Act based on exposure to atmospheric nuclear testing. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 29, 2015 

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

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act for 

purposes of making claims under such Act based on 

exposure to atmospheric nuclear testing. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Downwinders Com5 pensation Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INCLUSION UNDER THE RADIATION EXPOSURE 

7 COMPENSATION ACT. 

8 Section 4(b)(1) of the Radiation Exposure Com9 pensation Act (42 U.S.C. 2210 note; Public Law 101– 

10 426) is amended— 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1895 IS

1 (1) in subparagraph (B)— 

2 (A) by striking ‘‘that portion of’’; and 

3 (B) by striking ‘‘that consists of townships 

4 13 through 16 at ranges 63 through 71’’; and 

5 (2) in subparagraph (C), by inserting ‘‘all acre6 age in any county all or part of which is located in’’ 

7 before ‘‘that part’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 1, 2015

No. 04-15-00100-CR

Brandon MASTER,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2010CR4791W

The Honorable Kevin M. O'Connell, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 368 

U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Counsel has 

informed the appellant of his right to file his own brief and provided appellant with a form motion for 

requesting the appellate record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319-20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); 

Nichols v. State, 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State, 924 

S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no pet.). The State has filed a letter waiving its 

right to file an appellee’s brief unless the appellant files a pro se brief.

If the appellant desires to request the appellate record, he must file the motion requesting the 

record within ten days from the date of this order. If the appellant desires to file a pro se brief, he 

must do so within thirty days from the date of this order. See Bruns, 924 S.W.2d at 177 n.1. If the 

appellant files a pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no later than thirty days after the 

date the appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court. It is further ORDERED that the motion to 

withdraw, filed by appellant’s counsel, is HELD IN ABEYANCE pending further order of the court.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court 

on this 1st day of July, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Amendment No. 1 to Employment Agreement of Michael D. Hayford



 Exhibit 10.2 
 METAVANTE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 
 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 OF 
 MICHAEL D. HAYFORD

 THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is made as of the 1st day of November, 2008 by and between Metavante Technologies,
Inc., a Wisconsin corporation (“Metavante Technologies”), and Michael D. Hayford (the “Executive”). 
 RECITALS 

 WHEREAS, Metavante Technologies and the Executive are parties to that certain Employment Agreement (the “Employment
Agreement”) dated as of November 1, 2007; and 
 WHEREAS, the parties wish to amend the Employment Agreement to reflect a
change in the Executive’s title; 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree as follows: 
 1. Section 3(a) of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended to change the Executive’s title from “Senior Executive Vice President and
Chief Operating Officer” to “President and Chief Operating Officer”. 
 2. Section 10(b)(ii)(C) is revised to read
“a material diminution of the Executive’s title from President and Chief Operating Officer.” 
 3. Except as set forth above,
no other changes are made to the Employment Agreement and the Employment Agreement remains in full force and effect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the undersigned have executed this Amendment as of the date set forth above. 
  

			
	METAVANTE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Donald W. Layden, Jr.

	Name:	 	Donald W. Layden, Jr.
	Title:	 	Senior Executive Vice President,
		 	General Counsel and Secretary
	
	 /s/ Michael D. Hayford

	Michael D. Hayford
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

   We hereby consent to the use in this prospectus of Candela Corporation for
the Pre-effective Amendment No. 2 to Form S-1 (File No. 333-78339) of our
report dated July 29, 1998, except for the information in the third paragraph
of Note 6, for which the date is August 7, 1998, relating to the consolidated
financial statements of Candela Corporation and its Subsidiaries as of June 27,
1998 and June 28, 1997, and for each of the three years in the period ended
June 27, 1998, which appears in such prospectus. We also consent to the use in
this prospectus of our report on the Financial Statement Schedule, which
appears in Schedule II(b) and to the reference to us under the heading
"Experts" in such prospectus.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

June 29, 1999
--------- ----=-=~---------- REF ID:A65300 

Mr. J. 'PrelPCr Eckert JI Jr. 

Dinetor or Zagineertng 

Kckarl-Mrl.ueh)J' Div1*1on ~Ro.Minc .. 1300 'Wfft Al leg'beny A~ 

Phile.4elphia 29, hml9ylvania 

Dee- Mr. kkertt 

'?bie ia to ackn.:nrledge: receipt of fc>\lr c=ei.ted 

hr•onal llfi•to:ey 8tate3nt am t!ilp~ prtut a.tdd. 

All JOU imy kaaw, the pro<:e•a1Jl6 "quiffd ~ r;rant ... 

~ aceeee to IJQ.t1onal. Secur!t,y ~ney •tter• J1tqu1rea 

~h tU.. In 1'0Ul" ea.ti•, the P~••U2& bu~ been 

Ulitiated and you 1dll 'be t.!viffd ar the roulta thereof' 

in Aue ti.. 

WILL1.J.M .,. • JR~ 

kecv:tin Secr.taq 

JllSA 8cientitic M.vieoey Board 

cc: AG r- ~ 

C/8 - S/ASST (Mr. Frie<!man) 

M/R: ltr aelf'-expl&na.tory 

I.T. McOONAW/6o493/3 June 54/can 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 07-18-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a 

' ., 

\ 

\ 

\ 

~
1 Filed 4/3/14 P. v. Jones CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin)

----

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. CHRISTOPHER JONES, Defendant and Appellant. C074214 (Super. Ct. No. MF036325B)

Defendant Christopher J ones pleaded no contest to attempted second degree robbery after he and a confederate tr ied to take the victim’s wallet. As relevant to this appeal, the court st ated at sentencing it was imposing “$108 in revenue and security assessments” without sta ting the statutory basis for the base fine or assessments. The sentencing minute order states that the court imposed a $38 “law enforcement fine,” while the abstract of judg ment refers to a $38 “law enforcement fee”; neither refers to the statutory basis for the fee or fine. Defendant contends, and the People conced e, the matter must be remanded to the
trial court to set forth the amounts and statutor y authority for all fines, fees, penalties, and assessments imposed.2 We agree. In People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200, this court stated: “Although we recognize that a de tailed recitation of all the fees, fines and penalties on the record may be tedious, Califor nia law does not authorize shortcuts. All
fines and fees must be set forth in the abstract of judgment. [Citations.] The abstract of judgment form used here, Judicial Council form CR-290 . . . provides a number of lines for ‘other’ financial obligations in addition to those delineate d with statutory references on the preprinted form. If the abstract does not specify the amount of each fine, the Department of Corrections cannot fulfill its statutory duty to collect and forward deductions from prisoner wages to the approp riate agency. [Citati on.] At a minimum,
the inclusion of all fines and fees in the abst ract may assist state and local agencies in their collection efforts. [Citation.] Thus, ev en where the Department of Corrections has no statutory obligation to collect a particular fee, such as the laboratory fee imposed under Health and Safety Code s ection 11372.5, the fee must be included in the abstract of judgment. [Citation.]”
DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed. The matte r is remanded to the trial court with directions to correct the abstract of judgme nt to reflect all fines, fees, penalties, and
assessments. The court is directed to forwar d a certified copy of the corrected abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections a nd Rehabilitation.

RAYE , P. J.

We concur:

HULL , J.

MAURO , J.
J-A09029-20

2020 PA Super 128

___________________

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Appellee

 v.

WAYNE RICHARD GLENN,

 Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

 

 No. 1595 WDA 2019

Appeal from the Judgment of Sentence Entered October 4, 2019

in the Court of Common Pleas of Mercer County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP-43-CR-0000158-2019

BEFORE: SHOGAN, J., MURRAY, J. and STRASSBURGER, J.*

CONCURRING OPINION BY STRASSBURGER, J.: FILED MAY 29, 2020

Were this Court to reach the various canons of statutory construction, 

I would agree with the Majority’s analysis. However, I would not reach 

those canons because I find that the statutory language is not ambiguous. 

See A.S. v. Pennsylvania State Police, 143 A.3d 896, 903 (Pa. 2016) (“It 

is only when statutory text is determined to be ambiguous that we may go 

beyond the text and look to other considerations to discern legislative 

intent.”).

Briefly, subsection 3802(d) provides as follows.

(d) Controlled substances.--An individual may not drive, 

operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of a 

vehicle under any of the following circumstances:

(1) There is in the individual's blood any amount of a:

(i) Schedule I controlled substance, as defined in the 

act of April 14, 1972 (P.L. 233, No. 64),1 known as 

The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and 

Cosmetic Act;
J-A09029-20

- 2 -

(ii) Schedule II or Schedule III controlled substance, 

as defined in The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device 

and Cosmetic Act, which has not been medically 

prescribed for the individual; or

(iii) metabolite of a substance under subparagraph 

(i) or (ii).

75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(d) (emphasis added). 

Unlike subparagraphs (i) and (ii), subparagraph (iii) does not reference 

Schedule I, II, or III substances when proscribing the existence of 

metabolites in an individual’s blood. Rather, subparagraph (iii) specifically 

references subparagraphs (i) and (ii), the latter of which includes an 

exception for medically prescribed Schedule II and III substances. 

Therefore, the plain language of the statute provides for the exception set 

forth in subparagraph (ii) to carry through to subparagraph (iii), thereby 

excepting metabolites of medically prescribed Schedule II and III 

substances. 

Thus, I agree with the Majority that Appellant’s conviction for DUImetabolite was unlawful because the metabolite existed in his blood only as 

a result of a medically prescribed Schedule II substance, which I conclude is 

not illegal pursuant to the plain language of 75 Pa.C.S. § 3802(d).
- _-.. -_ ~ ': .. • ~ ~ ~- -· -; ... ... ... lo: .r:::i-~..:..- = - • -: - ~ ... -- • ..., 

- .. -": -.-REF-rD-:A.64701·-'... ._;.·, ___ , . ;,. . :::_.: .... a .... - - - -=-- ~- - · __ a -· --- .,. - - - - .9 - - ., - -- - - -

- --- .... , - ~ - r ':. 

_, 

_ .. -- ~ ;;. - ·=- ,. ~ ., ·_. "'i } a..-• - . n.· -;. 1'1~ 

-:: •~-.... -- -.. -

DlRNSA 

xx 

xx 

WL FD 

PmSONAL Fat COL PULLm FROM FlUEIJl1Aif PD WIUS IJ:RYOO MERELY 1U ARRA?IGE 

F<Jlo~CONDUC'l! AT PRINCETON Dl 1ALL OF ONB l1NE nVB J'M A SIX 'ro 

:BIGHT WEEKS ~ IN SPECIAL SUBJECJ.' IN WHiciLJs WELL ViRSED PD 

wmm TltOOOHT mIP couw :BE CC»!BINED WITH SJl)RT PmIOD TEMPORARY DUTY 

. WITH :WA WASBI11GTON AND Tlltll .. Jm':m'"'Y REQUF.sTOO MATS m.AmPCRTA'rION FCE 

..._____,f ~ FOLWflS 

Mr. Fr1edmn1 S/ ASST 

S/ABST 6o493 

PL 86-36/50 USC 3605 

1 

Special Assistant to The Director 

Declassified and approved for release by NSA on 07-17-2014 pursuantto E .0. 1352a
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7654

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DONZEL FREDRICKUS STINSON, a/k/a Shack, a/k/a Shaq,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00022-RLV-CH-20)

Submitted: January 10, 2013 Decided: January 23, 2013

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donzel Fredrickus Stinson, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Donzel Fredrickus Stinson appeals the district court’s 

order denying his motion for a reduction in his sentence under 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. 

Stinson, No. 5:06-cr-00022-RLV-CH-20 (Aug. 23, 2012). We deny 

Stinson’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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.

AFFIRMED
.. aus HAGELIN ~ID~f.&.lo~qG(-. ~~?e~~~. 

<J~hR. ~ ~~ ~ ~ 

:{!;, ~k ~OA-1 fl ~~ ~ F ~ ----

J ~~ ~ ~,~U_.{ ~~ 

~ :r;;~~~~~ 

~ (F-M-4 ~·~~, ~<A.i 

·~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 2r.;~~--- fkR ~ ~ ~ w.·~ r&. ~~. i ~~.~~·~~~ 

~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~<:(_~~~~ ir~ ~·~-~&_.+~~ 

"-(fM. ~ ~ ~ ¥3. t4~ wufi -&vu.f • ~ "J-- ~ 

'-0 ~ ~··~~ ~ ~-<e. ~,d K~'-t, 

~ ~ ~ ~ J1-?1d{_~ '1. ~ iiiiii--~ 

~ ~ ~ "fu( AA"( 4f'_ I ~ ~ 4-e 

~~~ru. Cby,k ~ 

~~~k~,~J~. 

~ 

01 ~ 

~-r · -41~ 

"--"'1 ~ 

~.~ 

~ 

~ 

~ 

o0.:~ ~ 

~ 
--u- . F ~:~263405 8 ~ ~if /tN\.e, ~- 'l/~ .... ___,~ ~ ~ ~ 

tf.MJ2.- ~ ~ ~- J O\JAA D ~ 

~ ~ 'J o<,,;~ ~ ~,,tz' 

~~ ! rt.-v~ ~~ ~ ~~ 

~ @(- ~~ Ue G~~_.n ~~ 

u D r.A.J- . '1 J:1 

u.-V<-0 <f"'J" , 'l.--\.~ I - (JV~ ~ ....V-""1 -· 

~~ f.-vl ~u--~ "'. PU~ 

~~~ 

~ ~ ~ euv-(Uv~ ~ 

~ t1-o I ov-J ~ ~ .n,;~ ~ ............................................. ~ ~ 0ZvcA.. t~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 

~VA.~·~~-~ 

~~ ~.e. ~~ aAA-e:_ ~ ~~ 

~ ~\ ~ {~ uv-1ot4~ ~ 

~ ~~ k./L, ~~ . 

J ~ ~ r,_g( ;1A.-eAJA:l. I ~ ~ -

~u_ <J ~ 4'.h~ ~p~ ~~ 

t\ ~--c.eA_;+.- . 

w~~~~ 

~ rr~~~~~ ~\
Ki•• Carol Cbannin& 

&L"tioaal Theatre 

1325 I Street.,. B .w. 

WaahiJJgtOn, D.c. 

Dear )lisa Cbarm~I 

, 

-

21 December 1954-

I veq mu.ch en.joyed your perform.nee Jut ewening 

•t t.be 'Sa.tional. 'l'beat:re, u well u that ot the other 

.ubera ot the entire ca.at.. :tt vaa a partec1;13-acted, 

wholly delighttul, azi4. mst UZ1118ual evenbg ~entertain­

•nt--J.oag to be laapt in mmoey. 

In new ot the content or one or the best of your 

aqs# ~ l 'be .,, bold u to 1m'1te )"our attention to 

• CftUmDB.tlcal slip ~ ideiltica.l nature in 1our otherwise dtreme~ well-&.me piece nlol.'elei Lee va. lluth Shervood, n 

u printed. in the •t1oml !J!hea.tre • • p."csramt 

Vith all good v1abea, I u, 

Sincere~, 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 07-09-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a
Exhibit 10 (16)
 Layne Christensen Company  Corporate Staff Incentive Compensation Plan
 Section I. Purpose of the Plan.
   Section II. Administration.
    Section III. Participation.
  Section IV. Selection of Targets.
  Section V. Determination of Amount of Award.
  GROUP I




---



##### 



GROUP II
  GROUP III
  GROUP IV
  GROUP V
  ILLUSTRATION
  Group I
    
    Group II
    
    Group III
    
    Group IV
    
    Group VPercentage of
    
    Base Salary
    
    Base Salary
    
    Base Salary
    
    Base Salary
    
    Base SalaryTarget Achieved
    
    Percentage
    
    Percentage
    
    Percentage
    
    Percentage
    
    Percentage130
    
    
    58
    
    
    
    36.25
    
    
    
    29
    
    
    
    21.75
    
    
    
    10.875120
    
    
    52
    
    
    
    32.5
    
    
    
    26
    
    
    
    19.5
    
    
    
    9.75110
    
    
    46
    
    
    
    28.75
    
    
    
    23
    
    
    
    17.25
    
    
    
    8.625Target 100
    
    
    40
    
    
    
    25
    
    
    
    20
    
    
    
    15
    
    
    
    7.590
    
    
    22.5
    
    
    
    22.5
    
    
    
    18
    
    
    
    13.5
    
    
    
    6.7580 or less
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    0
    
    
    
    0
  2




---



##### 



Section VI. Method of Payment.
  Section VII. Termination of Employment or Change in Award Level
    Section VIII. Miscellaneous.
     SECTION IX. Effective Date.
  3