alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

Catalina Lighting, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-23900, 33-27861, 33-33292, 33-62378 and 33-94016 of Catalina Lighting, Inc.
on Form S-8 of our report dated December 14, 2001 appearing in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Catalina Lighting, Inc. for the year ended September 30,
2001.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Certified Public Accountants

Miami, Florida
December 14, 2001
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Southeast Watershed Research: Tifton, GA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Scientific Partnerships
                        Long Term Agriculture Research Network (LTAR)
                                    GA Coastal Plain LTAR
                                    NRCS Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP)
                                    Southeast Biomass Research Center
                    About Us
                        History & Program
                                    Business Partnerships
                                    Models
                                    Public DataSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Tifton, Georgia Southeast Watershed Research People & Locations







Kristie G Graham
                        Southeast Watershed Research

                        




                        
                        Agricultural Science Research Technician (Insects)
                        Phone: (229) 387-2351
                        
                        
                        Fax: (229) 387-2321(Employee information on this page comes from the REE Directory. Please contact your front office staff to update the REE Directory.)


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 152

To provide for the relief and payment of an equitable claim to the estate

of Dr. Beatrice Braude of New York, New York.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 21, 1997

Mr. MOYNIHAN (for himself and Mr. D’AMATO) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To provide for the relief and payment of an equitable claim

to the estate of Dr. Beatrice Braude of New York, New

York.

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

3 SECTION 1. PAYMENT OF EQUITABLE CLAIM TO THE ES4 TATE OF DR. BEATRICE BRAUDE.

5 (a) PAYMENT.—From funds appropriated to the De6 partment of Justice for fiscal year 1997, the Attorney

7 General of the United States shall pay $200,000 to the

8 estate of Dr. Beatrice Braude of New York, New York

9 as an equitable claim as found by the hearing officer of

10 the Court of Federal Claims pursuant to Congressional
2

•S 152 IS

1 reference proceedings under sections 1492 and 2509 of

2 title 28, United States Code, and subsequently stipulated

3 by the Department of Justice, relating to the discharge

4 and disbarment of Dr. Beatrice Braude from Federal em5 ployment.

6 (b) FULL SETTLEMENT.—The payment made under

7 subsection (a) shall constitute full settlement of all legal

8 and equitable claims by the estate of Dr. Beatrice Braude

9 of New York, New York, against the United States.

10 (c) NO INFERENCE OF LIABILITY.—Nothing in this

11 section shall be construed as an inference of liability on

12 the part of the United States.

13 (d) ATTORNEY’S FEES.—No part of the amount ap14 propriated in this section in excess of 10 percent thereof

15 shall be paid or delivered to or received by any agent or

16 attorney on account of services rendered in connection

17 with this section, and the same shall be unlawful, any con18 tract to the contrary notwithstanding. Violation of the pro19 visions of this subsection is a misdemeanor punishable by

20 a fine not to exceed $1,000.

Æ
Exhibit 10.3

                                    ADDENDUM

This  Addendum  ("Addendum"),  to the equity line of credit  dated July 22, 2008
(the  "July  equity  line")  between   Dutchess   Private   Equities  Fund,  Ltd
("Dutchess") and Domark  International,  Inc. and all of its  subsidiaries  (the
"Company").

WHEREAS,  it is in  the  best  interest  of  both  parties  to  facilitate  (the
"Facilitation") the amendments in connection with the July 22, 2008 equity line.

NOW,  THEREFORE,  in  consideration  of the  premises and mutual  covenants  and
agreements  set  forth  herein  and in  reliance  upon the  representations  and
warranties contained herein, the parties hereto covenant and agree as follows:

1.   Amendment to the July equity line of credit.

     a.   the  equity  line of credit  is  hereby  amended  to  increase  in its
          entirety the Line Amount from $50,000,000 to $100,000,000.

     b.   the equity line is hereby  amended to increase in its entirety the put
          amount to either 1)  $5,000,000 or 2) 200% of the average daily volume
          (U.S.  market only)  ("ADV")  multiplied by the average of the 3 daily
          closing prices immediately preceeding the put date. The "ADV" shall be
          computed using (3) trading days prior to the put date.

Agreed and Accepted,  and duly authorized to sign, on this 21st day of November,
2008.


By Dutchess: /s/ Douglas H. Leighton
            --------------------------------------------------
            Douglas H. Leighton, Managing Director


By Company: /s/ R. Thomas Kidd
            --------------------------------------------------
            R. Thomas Kidd, Chief Executive Officer,
            Domark International, Inc.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Optical Molecular Imaging, Inc (the Company) hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:

(i) The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |     |  |                        
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------
|Date: March 30, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ C. Kirk Peacock    
|                     |  |     |  | C. Kirk Peacock        
|                     |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
CHARLES IZAC, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

MARION FEATHERS, 

Respondent. 

MOSMAN,J., 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

No. 3:14-cv-01713-JE 

OPINION AND ORDER 

On September 21, 2015, Magistrate Judge John Jelderks issued his Findings and 

Recommendation [36], recommending that I DENY Petitioner Charles Izac's Motion for 

Summary Judgment [28] and DISMISS Mr. Izac's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [1] with 

prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Judge Jelderks also recommended that I allow a certificate of 

appealability. Petitioner objected to the Findings and Recommendation [39]. 

DISCUSSION 

The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may 

file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge, 

but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to 

make a de novo determination regarding those p01iions of the repo1i or specified findings or 

1 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:14-cv-01713-JE Document 41 Filed 11/12/15 Page 1 of 2
recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). However, the court 

is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of 

the magistrate judge as to those potiions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 

(9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R 

depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, 

or modify any pati of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). 

Upon review, I agree with Judge Jelderk's recommendation in pati and I ADOPT in pati 

the F&R [36] as my own opinion. Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment [28] is DENIED 

and his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [1] is DIMISSED with prejudice. I will allow a 

certificate of appealability only on the first issue of whether a convicted person can be actually 

innocent of an aspect of his sentence without begin actually innocent of the underlying crime, but 

not on the issue of whether a petitioner's Virginia burglary convictions qualify as predicate 

offenses under the ACCA. All other pending motions are DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this \)/'ty ofNovember, 2015. 

United 

MI~ States District Judge 

2 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 3:14-cv-01713-JE Document 41 Filed 11/12/15 Page 2 of 2
# C_2005331EN.01001901.xml

| 28.12.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.12.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/19

---

Notice inviting applications for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block M8 of the Dutch continental shelf

(2005/C 331/14)

(Text with EEA relevance)

The Minister for Economic Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands hereby gives notice that an application has been received for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block M8 as indicated on the map appended as Annex 3 to the Mining Regulation (Mijnbouwregeling) (Government Gazette (Staatscourant) 2002, No 245).

Mijnbouwregeling

Staatscourant

With reference to Article 3(2) of Directive 94/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 on the conditions for granting and using authorisations for the prospection, exploration and production of hydrocarbons and the publication required by Article 15 of the Mining Act (Mijnbouwwet) (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees (Staatsblad) 2002, 542), the Minister for Economic Affairs hereby invites interested parties to submit an application for authorisation to prospect for hydrocarbons in block M8.

Mijnbouwwet

Staatsblad

The Minister for Economic Affairs is the competent authority for the granting of authorisations. The criteria, conditions and requirements referred to in Articles 5(1), 5(2) and 6(2) of the Directive are set out in the Mining Act (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees 2002, No 542).

Applications may be submitted during the 13 weeks following the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union and should be sent to the Minister for Economic Affairs, for the attention of the Director of Energy Production, Prinses Beatrixlaan 5, The Hague, Netherlands, and marked ‘personal’. Applications submitted after the expiry of this period will not be considered.

A decision on the applications will be taken not later than 12 months after the period has expired.

Further information can be obtained from the following telephone number: (31-70) 379 66 94.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

EVONNE E. MERRILL, 

Plaintiff, No. 06:14-cv-01429-SB

v. 

 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting ORDER

Commissioner of Social Security, 

 Defendant.

HERNANDEZ, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Beckerman issued a Findings and Recommendation (#17) on September

24, 2015, in which she recommends that this Court affirm the decision of the Commissioner to

deny Plaintiff's application for disability insurance benefits. The matter is now before me

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation were

timely filed, I am relieved of my obligation to review the record de novo. United States v.

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc); see also United States v. Bernhardt,

840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988) (de novo review required only for portions of Magistrate

1 - ORDER

Case 6:14-cv-01429-SB Document 19 Filed 11/13/15 Page 1 of 2
Judge's report to which objections have been made). Having reviewed the legal principles de

novo, I find no error. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Beckerman's Findings & Recommendation [17].

Accordingly, the Commissioner's decision is affirmed. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this day of , 2015.

 

MARCO A. HERNANDEZ

United States District Judge

2 - ORDER

Case 6:14-cv-01429-SB Document 19 Filed 11/13/15 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1.00
<CASH>                                             3,473
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          0
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       0
<PP&E>                                         1,242,564
<DEPRECIATION>                                   123,354
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,203,453
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  0
<BONDS>                                          741,966
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                       419,463
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,203,453
<SALES>                                           42,055
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  43,149
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     14,320
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                10,497
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    8,999
<INCOME-TAX>                                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                8,999
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                       8,999
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        .27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        .27
        


</TABLE>
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A1 8 D0 11 8 . STEFANI E L. BORGERS v

. BRYAN THOMAS BORGERS.

Up o n co n s i d erat i o n o f t h e Ap p l i cat i on fo r Di s cret i o n ary Ap p eal
, i t i s o rd ered

t h at i t b e h ereb y GRANTED. Th e Ap p el l an t m ay fi l e a No t i ce o f Ap p eal wi t h i n 1 0
d ay s of t he d at e o f t h i s ord er. T h e C l e r k o f Su p eri o r Co u rt i s d i rect ed t o i n cl u d e a

co p y o f t h i s o rd er i n t h e reco rd t ran s m i t ted t o t h e Co u rt o f Ap p eal s

. Th e Ap p el l an t ’ s req u es t t o s t ay t h e t ri al co u rt ’ s o rd er i s D ENIED. See Co u rt

o f Ap p eal s Ru le 4 1 (b ). Sh ou l d Ap p el l an t wi s h t o o b tai n a ru l i n g o n t h i s i s s u e, s h e

s h o u ld fi rs t d i rect an y

s u ch req u es t t o t h e t ri al co u rt . See Gr een Bu l l Ga . Pa r t n er

s , LLC v. Reg i s ter , 3 0 1 Ga. 4 7 2, 4 7 3 (8 0 1 SE2 d 8 4 3 ) (2 0 1 7).

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia C le r k ’ s O f f i c e , A t la n t a ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r ti f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i t n e s s m y s ig n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o f s a i d c o u r t
h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. October 17, 2017

10/17/2017
exv10w50









Exhibit 10.50




AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO THE

APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.

EXECUTIVE DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN




     APPLIED MATERIALS, INC., having adopted the Applied Materials, Inc. Executive Deferred
Compensation Plan (the “Plan”) effective as of July 1, 1993, amended and restated the Plan in its
entirety effective as of April 1, 1995, and amended the restated Plan on four subsequent occasions,
hereby again amends the restated Plan as follows:



     1. Effective as of December 13, 2005, Section 7.2 is amended in its entirety to read as
follows:




     “7.2 Committee. The Plan shall be administered on behalf of the
Company by a Committee consisting of employees of the Company who hold the following
titles or positions (“Specified Positions”):




          (a) Corporate Controller;




          (b) Corporate Treasurer;




          (c) Appointed Vice President, Compensation and Benefits (the “VP, Comp &
Benefits”);




          (d) Senior Director, Treasury; and




          (e) Director, Global Benefits.




The VP, Comp & Benefits also may appoint to Committee membership one additional
employee of the Company. In no event, however, shall any member of the Committee be
an individual who reports directly to the Chief Executive Officer of the Company.
The VP, Comp & Benefits may remove the appointed member of the Committee at any time
and may fill any vacancy of appointed members of the Committee which exists.”



     2. Effective as of July 3, 2006, Section 7.2 (as amended by Paragraph 1 above) is further
amended by deleting subsection (d) thereof and substituting the following subsection (d) therefor:




          “(d) Managing Director, Treasury; and”.



 









 





     3. Effective as of December 13, 2006, Section 7.2 (as amended by Paragraphs 1 and 2 above) is
further amended by adding the following sentence immediately after the first sentence thereof:




“Notwithstanding the foregoing, if any member of the Committee who holds a Specified
Position (the “Prior Position”) is promoted such that he or she holds a higher title
or position within his or her same department or unit (the “Successor Position”),
the Successor Position shall replace the Prior Position as a Specified Position
under the Plan, except as otherwise may be determined by the VP, Comp & Benefits.”



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Applied Materials, Inc., by its duly authorized officer, has executed this
Amendment No. 5 to the restated Plan effective as of the dates specified above.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By
	 	/s/ Robert Hartley	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	Title: V.P. Compensation and Benefits	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Date:
	 	2/27/07	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 





2
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

February 25, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LINDSEY KENT SPRINGER,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 14-5109

(D.C. Nos. 4:13-CV-00145-SPF-TLW and

4:09-CR-00043-SPF-1)

(N.D. Okla.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

Before HARTZ, McKAY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

Appellant seeks a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s dismissal

of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 habeas petition.

In 2010, Appellant was convicted on several tax evasion charges and sentenced to

180 months’ imprisonment. We affirmed his convictions and sentence on direct appeal. 

United States v. Springer, 444 F. App’x 256 (10th Cir. 2011). Appellant then filed the

instant § 2255 petition, in which he raised seventy-six grounds for relief. The district

court dismissed the majority of these grounds as procedurally barred, then concluded that

*

 This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case,

res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value

consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
each of the remaining grounds failed on the merits.

We have thoroughly reviewed the appellate record and Appellant’s filings on

appeal, as well as the applicable legal standards. Having done so, we conclude that

reasonable jurists would not debate the correctness of the district court’s comprehensive

orders disposing of this case. We accordingly DENY Appellant’s request for a certificate

of appealability and DISMISS the appeal. We DENY Appellant’s motion to proceed in

forma pauperis on appeal. All other pending motions are likewise DENIED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Monroe G. McKay

Circuit Judge

-2-