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

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                               344,161
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                         24,198
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                        4,814,648
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           0
<PP&E>                                80,226
<DEPRECIATION>                             0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     5,878,315
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      0
<BONDS>                            3,794,390
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                        1,011,899
<COMMON>                             696,774
<OTHER-SE>                          (620,011)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       5,878,315
<SALES>                            4,575,448
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   4,755,497
<CGS>                              3,987,643
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      4,070,128
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    76,532
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      230,904
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  230,904
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                         230,904
<EPS-BASIC>                           0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0.08


</TABLE>
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.11    
    



	Techwell, Inc.

631 River Oaks Parkway

San Jose, CA 95134 U.S.A.	 	Tel: (408) 435-3888

Fax: (408) 435-0588





September 8,
2000 


Dong-Wook
Nam

102-1002 Whang-Gul-Ju-Kong Apt.

YoungTong Dong, Pal-dal Gu, Suwon

Kyung-Ki Do, Korea 


        Techwell Inc.
is pleased to offer to you the position of Field Application Manager, reporting to Jun Kim. 


        The
provision of this offer are as follow: 



	1.
	The
annual salary for this exempt position is $90,000.00



	2.
	Subject
to the approval of our Board of Directors and subject to the terms and conditions of the Techwell Stock Option Plan, you will have the opportunity to purchase 25,000 shares of
the Company's Common stock.



	3.
	You
will participate in Techwell's medical and dental plan, effective the 1st day of the following month of your start day.



	4.
	You
will be required to sign the Company Standard Employee Confidentially and Non disclosure Agreement.



	5.
	In
compliance with the new Immigration and Naturalization Service's Act, you will be required to furnish proof of your right to work in the United States upon acceptance of this offer.



	6.
	This
offer is valid through January 15, 2001. 




        Please
indicate your acceptance by signing this letter and returning it to me. We look forward to your joining the Techwell team. 



	Sincerely,	 	 	 	 
	

/s/ Jun Kim	
 	

/s/ Fumihiro Kozato
	

Jun Kim

Director of Sales	
 	

Hiro Kazato

President & CEO
	

Accepted:	
 	

/s/ Nam
	
 	

Date:	
 	

9.25.2000

	

Start Date:	
 	

 	
 	

 	
 	

 
	 	 	
	 	 	 	 













QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.11
# C_2010096EN.01000101.xml

| 16.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.5676 — Sevenone Media/G+J Electronic Media Service/Tomorrow Focus Portal/IP Deutschland/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 96/01

On 21 January 2010, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in German and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5676. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32010M5676. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
# L_2010263EN.01001501.xml

| 6.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 263/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 263/15

---

Corrigendum to Directive 2010/13/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive)

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 95 of 15 April 2010
  )

On page 17, Article 14(3):

for:

‘..., that broadcasters under their jurisdiction do not exercise the exclusive rights purchased by those broadcasters after 18 December 2007 in such a way ...’,

read:

‘..., that broadcasters under their jurisdiction do not exercise the exclusive rights purchased by those broadcasters after 30 July 1997 in such a way ...’.

---
#### Gemmon LLC, Appellant, v Vera Wang Becker et al., Respondents.

[50 NYS3d 65]

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen M. Coin, J.), entered December 14, 2015, dismissing the complaint as to each defendant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The court properly dismissed the fraud claim against individual defendant Vera Wang Becker because the amended complaint failed to plead any misrepresentations made by her to plaintiff, since plaintiff dealt with others and there were no allegations that she authorized the alleged misrepresentations by others with knowledge of their falsity *(see National Westminster Bank v Weksel,*124 AD2d 144, 147 [1st Dept 1987], *appeal denied*70 NY2d 604 [1987]). Becker had no duty to plaintiff to disclose confidential negotiations concerning a possible licensing agreement with Kohl’s *(see Jolly King Rest. v Hershey Chan Realty,*214 AD2d 422 [1st Dept 1995]).

The court properly found that defendant Vera Wang Bridal House (VWBH) sustained its initial burden of demonstrating the absence of loss causation based on evidence that plaintiff’s business was in arrears before Kohl’s began selling Vera Wang merchandise; VWBH had a substantial quantity of fine jewelry accessible to plaintiff, when its account was brought current; the change in the manufacturer of the fragrance products did *580not result in an unwarranted delay in the availability of the merchandise; and VWBH had no obligation to continue its relationship with any particular vendor.

Plaintiff failed to present evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to these issues. The “prevention doctrine” is unavailing because it is applicable only to conditions precedent *(see Thor Props., LLC v Chetrit Group LLC,*91 AD3d 476, 477 [1st Dept 2012]).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Maz-zarelli, Kapnick and Kahn, JJ.
<PAGE>
   
                                                          Exhibit 23
    

                               ARTHUR
                              ANDERSEN


              Consent of Independent Public Accountants
              -----------------------------------------
   
We agree to the inclusion in this Form 10-K of our report, dated March 21, 
1997, on our audit of the financial statements of the Federal Deposit 
Insurance Corporation's Bank Insurance Fund. It should be noted that we have 
performed no audit procedures subsequent to March 21, 1997, the date of our 
report. Furthermore, we have not audited any financial statements of the Bank 
Insurance Fund as of any date or for any period subsequent to December 31, 
1996.
    

                                                 /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP

March 31, 1997
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 07, 2021. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, December 07, 2021 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A22D0140. MARGO ELIZABETH BYRNE v. ROBERT BYRNE.
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 20CV00358
DLA emergency responders to honor fellow law enforcement officers, emergency medical technicians
 
  By DLA Installation Management
  Emergency responders throughout the Defense Logistics Agency will pay special recognition to police officers who lost their lives in the line of duty for the safety and protection of others during National Police Week May 12-18. Observances throughout the enterprise will include community celebrations and events such as wreath laying ceremonies that honor fallen and current local, state and federal emergency response officers: Columbus, Ohio:
• May 13, 11 a.m., opening ceremony
• May 14, noon, 4 p.m. and 10 p.m., Moment of Silence broadcast
• May 15, 10 a.m. story reading at the Child Development Center
• May 16, 10:15 a.m., leadership barbecue
• May 17, 4 p.m., closing remarks San Joaquin, California:
• May 15, 10 a.m. Peace Officer Memorial Ceremony Richmond, Virginia:
• May 14, 2:30 p.m. Peace Officer Memorial Ceremony Susquehanna, Pennsylvania:
• May 13-17, memorial display booth at the Security and Emergency Services Office National Police Week also includes National Police Officers Memorial Day on May 15. Both were created in 1962 by President John F. Kennedy. Flags across the United States, including those at all DLA facilities, will be flown at half-staff May 15 in remembrance of the more than 23,000 law enforcement officers who have been killed in the line of duty throughout the nation's history. A candlelight vigil will be held for families and friends of fallen law enforcement officers throughout the nation at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., May 15. The wall was dedicated in 1991 by President George H.W. Bush. National Police Week is followed by Emergency Medical Services Week May19-25. It was established by President Gerald Ford in 1974 to honor EMS professionals and their work responding to medical emergencies. More information is available at the National Police Week websiteand National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians website.
# Women’s History Month Spotlight: Kari Riskedahl

/ Published March 19, 2019

*Editor’s note: The Defense Logistics Agency recognizes March as Women’s History Month. In honor of women’s contributions to the agency’s global mission, DLA is highlighting female employees who work day in and day out to provide logistics support to America’s warfighters.*

**My name is:**Kari Riskedahl

**I am:**DLA Logistics Information’s business relationship manager to DLA Land & Maritime and chief of the Information Technology Operations Center Division 

**Describe your job in a sentence:**I look for IT problems and work to correct the problems or explain why something has to work the way it does.

**How long have you worked at DLA?**Thirteen years, but it doesn’t feel like even half that.

**What is your favorite thing about working for DLA?**DLA has been and continues to be a wonderful employer. The opportunities to learn, get involved, stretch your knowledge and extra-stretching your comfort zones for professional development are endless.

**What are your best memories of working here?**I’ve been in several situations that required I develop new knowledge or skill sets quickly. The situations were all very challenging and I struggled to find the best course of action. Those “crucible moments” ended up being the best professional development experiences. Now when I’m faced with a very difficult challenge or something that seems uphill in all directions, I pause and remind myself that these experiences build me.

**How do you make a difference?**I own problems. I work them from assorted angles and engage various subject matter experts to resolve them.

**How do you resolve conflict in the workplace and at home?**I have core leadership principles and values that keep me focused. I try not to get caught up in the extras and keep focused on the principle.

**What does Women’s History Month mean to you?**While this is a month to celebrate contributions of women in the past, I am mindful of this every day. I read the news and observe women in an array of responsibilities, and I marvel at what they do. I witness contributions by the women in DLA, my community and my circle of friends as they challenge the status quo knowing how far we still must go.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Amari Jenkins Gonzalez, Appellant.

[52 NYS3d 229]

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Miller, J.), imposed January 30, 2014, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

*1025Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid, as the record fails to establish that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal *(see People v Maracle,*19 NY3d 925, 927-928 [2012]; *People v Bradshaw,*18 NY3d 257, 272-273 [2011]; *People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]). “ ‘An appeal waiver is not valid unless the defendant’s understanding of the waiver is evident on the face of the record’ ” *(People v De La Rosa,*148 AD3d 927 [2017], quoting *People v Little,*127 AD3d 1235 [2015]). The record does not demonstrate that the defendant understood the nature of the right to appeal and the consequences of waiving it *(see People v De La Rosa,*148 AD3d 927 [2017]; *People v Cuevas-Alcantara,*136 AD3d 650 [2016]; *People v Little,*127 AD3d 1235 [2015]; *People v Quezada,*122 AD3d 948 [2014]; *People v Brown,*122 AD3d 133 [2014]). Moreover, “[t]he defendant’s execution of a written waiver ‘is not a complete substitute for an on-the-record explanation of the nature of the right to appeal, and some acknowledgment that the defendant is voluntarily giving up that right’ ” *(People v Cuevas-Alcantara,*136 AD3d at 650, quoting *People v Bradshaw,*76 AD3d 566, 569 [2010], *affd*18 NY3d 257 [2011]). Here, the Supreme Court’s statement that “because of our agreement today . . . the case is now final,” followed by a simple confirmation that the defendant signed and understood the waiver, was insufficient *(see People v Collins,*141 AD3d 729 [2016]). Thus, the waiver does not preclude review of the defendant’s excessive sentence claim *(see People v Lopez,*6 NY3d at 257).

Nevertheless, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Eng, P.J., Dillon, Sgroi, Maltese and Barros, JJ., concur.
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

145 A.3d 722-729

#### Bailey v. Elder; Hoyt Royalty, LLC, In re

09/07/2016

945 MAL (2015)

Denied

Pa.Super., 134 A.3d 484
Annual Inventory Program, refined focus on metrics to improve DLA Distribution auditability
 
  By Brittany Heckman, DLA Distribution
  In September 2014, the Defense Logistics Agency asserted that it was prepared to undergo formal auditing by an independent public accountant. The assertion meant that effective controls were in place for DLA processes and management oversight. Since then, DLA’s policies, procedures and financial statements have been analyzed by three IPAs and the Department of Defense Inspector General. When auditors discover a deficiency with DLA’s processes or systems, a Notice of Findings and Recommendations is issued. An NFR is a formal opportunity to correct deficiencies identified by the IPA, improve overall DLA audit performance and ensure DLA is adhering to financial reporting requirements. One NFR issued as a result of the fiscal 2018 Full Financial Statement Audit indicated that the IPA was dissatisfied with DLA’s method of ensuring inventory accuracy, specifically the frequency in which DLA performs inventory counts. To address the finding, DLA implemented the Annual Inventory Program, which requires 100 percent of items in DLA custody be counted each year. This increases accountability for DLA-owned items and items owned by the military services that are in DLA custody. To monitor the AIP, DLA Distribution performs a weekly review of distribution centers’ progress to ensure they are on track to complete the 100 percent inventory check by end of the fiscal year. The AIP is expected to improve inventory accuracy for DLA Distribution by the end of fiscal 2020. And since reports sent to inventory owners includes details on each inventory adjustment transaction resulting from physical inventory counts, military owners can perform audit-required inventory reconciliations. DLA Distribution’s Office of Management and Budget Circular A-123 and Quality Programs have also benefited from audit requirements with the completion of an A-123-compliant Risk and Controls Matrix. The RCM outlines risks and controls that affect auditability and includes risks identified by each distribution center. Historically, DLA Distribution has focused on metrics such as time standards and accuracy rates to determine if mission goals are being met. While these are still important, the audit highlights risks that DLA Distribution had not previously focused on. Risks monitored using the RCM are aligned with the lines of effort in the DLA Director’s Strategic Plan. This allows DLA to identify areas where controls are working effectively and those where the agency lacks controls to support management assertions and mission requirements. Where risk is not already mitigated, DLA Distribution documents the deficiencies, takes timely action to correct them, then follows up with testing to demonstrate the risk has been mitigated. The 100 percent AIP and the A-123 Compliant RCM show that DLA and DLA Distribution are implementing new processes to improve overall financial reporting and customer support.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 181 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 181

 To prohibit the export of American black bear viscera, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 26 (legislative day, January 5), 1993

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To prohibit the export of American black bear viscera, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Black Bear Protection Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON EXPORT OF AMERICAN BLACK BEAR VISCERA.

    The Secretary of Commerce shall exercise the authority the 
Secretary has under the Export Administration Act of 1979 to prohibit 
the export from the United States of American black bear viscera.

SEC. 3. REPORT BY SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.

    The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary 
of the Treasury, shall prepare and submit to the Congress, not later 
than one hundred eighty days after the date of the enactment of this 
Act, a report that describes--
            (1) the effectiveness of the computerized information 
        system or any other system of the Fish and Wildlife Service or 
        the United States Customs Service that records data on the 
        importation or exportation of wildlife body parts, specifically 
        of the American black bear, to and from the United States; and
            (2) any plans of the Fish and Wildlife Service to monitor 
        the illegal movement of, or commercial activity in, American 
        black bear viscera or other American black bear body parts.

SEC. 4. UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE.

    The United States Trade Representative shall discuss the issues 
involving trade in American black bear viscera with the appropriate 
representatives of those countries trading with the United States who 
are determined jointly by the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior to 
be the leading importers of American black bear viscera.

SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

    As used in this Act, the term ``American black bear viscera'' means 
the gallbladder or any internal organs of an American black bear (Ursus 
Americanus).

                                 <all>
```
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-23-00751-CR

Alexis Luciano, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 9 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. C-1-CR-23-200063, THE HONORABLE KIM WILLIAMS, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R A N D M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

PER CURIAM

Appellant Alexis Luciano seeks to appeal pro se her conviction for indecent 

exposure. See Tex. Penal Code § 21.08. However, the clerk’s record does not contain the 

necessary trial court certification of her right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2) (requiring 

trial court to enter certification of defendant’s right of appeal “each time it enters a judgment of 

guilt or other appealable order”), (d) (requiring record to include trial court’s certification). On 

December 21, 2023, in response to an inquiry from this Court, the Travis County Clerk filed a 

letter stating that no certification has been filed with the clerk’s office.

Accordingly, we abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for 

entry of a certification of Luciano’s right of appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), 44.4. A 
2

supplemental clerk’s record containing the trial court’s certification shall be filed with this Court 

no later than January 26, 2024. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c)(2).

It is ordered on January 4, 2024.

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Smith and Theofanis

Abated and Remanded

Filed: January 4, 2024

Do Not Publish
CAAP-13-0000073

#### Perkins v. Perkins

Affirmed