alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.28





 Exhibit 10.28 

[Rockley Letter Head] 
 [Date], 2021 

Andrew Rickman 
 [address] 

Re: Post-Business Combination Equity 
 Dear Andrew, 

As you know, Rockley Photonics Limited (the “Company”) and Rockley Photonics Holdings Limited (“Holdings”) have entered into a Business
Combination Agreement, dated as of March 19, 2021 (the “Business Combination Agreement”), with SC Health Corporation and Rockley Mergersub Limited, pursuant to which, upon the consummation of the transactions contemplated therein (the
“Closing”), among other things, the Company will become a subsidiary of Holdings. In connection with the Closing, it is also expected that the Company and you will amend your employment agreement with the Company dated April 1, 2020
(as amended, your “Employment Agreement”). 
 This letter confirms that, in connection with the Closing, subject to approval by the Board of
Directors of Holdings (the “Holdings Board”), and conditioned upon the filing of a Form S-8 registration statement by Holdings with respect to the Holdings 2021 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Stock
Incentive Plan”), you will be granted a combination of (i) stock options to purchase shares of Holdings common stock at a price equal to such stock’s fair market value on the date of grant and/or (ii) restricted stock units for
shares of Holdings common stock having an aggregate fair value determined at the Closing (or at grant) equal to $5 million. The equity awards shall be subject to the Stock Incentive Plan and such additional terms and conditions, including
time-based quarterly vesting over four (4) years following the Closing subject to your continued employment, as shall be set forth in the applicable equity award agreement approved by the Holdings Board. 

In addition, in the event that the Company and Holdings consider that your Employment Agreement has been terminated by (a) the Company for a reason other
than for Cause or (b) lawfully by you for Good Reason (as each is defined in your Employment Agreement), in each case on or within twelve (12) months following a Change in Control (as defined in the Stock Incentive Plan), the above
mentioned equity award(s) will vest in full, provided you execute a Severance Agreement and Release of Claims relating to your employment and its termination, in a form agreed with the Company, no later than sixty (60) days after the effective
date of termination of employment. 
 This letter agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of England and Wales. The
parties irrevocably agree that the courts of England and Wales shall have exclusive jurisdiction to settle any dispute arising out of or in connection with this letter. 

This letter agreement may be executed in a number of counterparts, and this has the same effect as if the signatures on the counterparts were on a single copy
of this letter agreement. 













									
	ROCKLEY PHOTONICS, INC.	 		 	ROCKLEY PHOTONICS HOLDINGS INC.
					
	By:	 	 	 		 	By:	 	 
		 	Name:	 		 		 	Name:
		 	Title:	 		 		 	Title:

  

	
	 Understood and Accepted:

	
	   

	 Andrew Rickman

	
	 Date:_____________________________________
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM COMPANY'S
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF INCOME TAXES AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCED TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001001185
<NAME>                        IDX SYSTEMS CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                  1,000
<CURRENCY>                    U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                           <C>               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 6-MOS             6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             DEC-31-2000       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                JAN-01-2000       JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  JUN-30-2000       JUN-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                         1                 1
<CASH>                             36,053             7,338
<SECURITIES>                       49,334            63,281
<RECEIVABLES>                      96,326           114,518
<ALLOWANCES>                       (4,005)           (2,724)
<INVENTORY>                             0                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                  209,828           203,520
<PP&E>                             98,375            94,093
<DEPRECIATION>                     32,513            43,520
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    291,458           274,104
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              71,461            63,227
<BONDS>                                 0                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0                 0
<PREFERRED>                             0                 0
<COMMON>                              280               357
<OTHER-SE>                        210,722           201,285
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      291,458           274,104
<SALES>                           156,318           160,905
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                  156,318           160,905
<CGS>                             115,820           105,098
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      91,966            72,434
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   (2,130)              381
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    1,058               733
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      2               858
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (49,338)          (17,008)
<INCOME-TAX>                      (16,816)           (6,180)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (32,522)          (10,828)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0                 0
<CHANGES>                               0                 0
<NET-INCOME>                      (32,522)          (10,828)
<EPS-BASIC>                         (1.16)            (0.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (1.16)            (0.38)



</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America v. Vidal MOLINA.

Crim. No. L-88-31.

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Laredo Division.

March 7, 1988.

*14Louis Menendez, Asst. Public Defender, Laredo, Tex., for defendant.

Mark Dowd, U.S. Atty., for U.S.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KAZEN, District Judge.

Pending is Defendant’s motion to suppress. Defendant’s vehicle was stopped by a roving Border Patrol. The Court is not satisfied from the totality of the circumstances that the officer had a reasonable basis to suspect that the Defendant was participating in criminal activity at the time of the stop.

The Defendant was operating a 1981 Buick automobile with tinted windows. The Court must reject the characterization of this vehicle as a “smuggler’s vehicle” simply because it is large enough to carry several passengers. The stop was at approximately 6:00 p.m., some 80 miles from the Mexican border. The vehicle bore a Texas license plate, registered in Mission, Texas. Reviewing the official map of Texas, it is also difficult to characterize FM 1017 as a particularly suspicious route on which a person from Mission might travel north.

The most serious factor described by the agent was the alleged erratic movements of the vehicle. However, FM 1017 is a small, 2-lane highway and again it is difficult to ascribe serious criminal activity to a vehicle which at best would sometimes slide over the left or right edges of its one lane of traffic. While this factor in combination with others could lead to a finding of reasonable suspicion, in this case it virtually stands alone and cannot support such a finding.

The motion is GRANTED.
#### In the Matter of Dave Almeter et al., Petitioners v State Division of Human Rights et al., Respondents.

— Determination unanimously modified on the law and as modified confirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: While the record supports the determination of discrimination made by the Commissioner of the New York State Division of Human Rights, it does not support the Commissioner’s award for mental anguish. Complainant testified that she was upset for approximately one month following petitioners’ refusal to rent her an apartment. She further indicated that during this period she suffered from headaches, for which she took aspirin. Complainant sought no medical treatment. The Administrative Law Judge awarded complain*531ant $1,500 in compensatory damages for mental anguish, which was increased by the Commissioner to $10,000. This award is grossly excessive. Accordingly, we reduce the award of damages for mental anguish to $1,500 (see, *e.g., Matter of Board of Educ. v State Div. of Human Rights,*109 AD2d 988, 990-991). (Executive Law § 298 proceeding transferred by order of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J.) Present— Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Donat Reid, Respondent, v Walter R. Kelly, as Superintendent of Attica Correctional Facility, et al., Appellants.

— Determination annulled, on the law, and petition granted *(see, mem in Matter ofLahey v Kelly,*125 AD2d 923 [decided herewith]). All concur, except Balio, J., who dissents and votes to confirm the determination *(see, dissenting mem in Matter of Lahey v Kelly,*125 AD2d 923, 924-926 [decided herewith], *supra).*(Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Wyoming County, Dadd, J. — art 78.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Green, Balio, Lawton and Schnepp, JJ.
T]NITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAIID SECURITY

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

TAIITED STATES COAST GUARD.

Complainant,

vs.

MCHOLASPOCCIA,

Respondent.

Docket Number 2023-00 l6

Enforcement Activity No. 7577070

ADMISSION ORDER

Issued: Januarv 24. 2023

By Administrative Law Judse: Honorable Timothv G. Stueve

Appearances:

CWO Daniel Hager

Sector Honolulu

For the Coast Guard

Nicholas Poccia, pro se

For Respondent
On or about January 17,2023,the United States Coast Guard (USCG or Coast Guard),

filed a Complaint against Nicholas Poccia (Respondent) alleging two counts ofviolation of law

or regulation under 46 U.S.C. $ 7703(1XA) and 46 C.F.R. $ 5.33.

In the Complaint, the Coast Guard alleges:

1. Between November 2021 and April 2022, Respondent's Merchant Mariners

Credential (MMC) was endorsed for service as Master Of Self-Propelled Vessels lncluding

Auxiliary Sail ofless Than 100 Gross Register Tons Upon Inland Waters and entry level rating

endorsements.

2. Between November 2021 and April2022, Respondent served as Master ofthe vessel

KIBOU approximately l3 times, in violation of 46 C.F.R. 15.401(a).

3. Between November 2021and August 2022, Respondent's Merchant Mariners

Credential (MMC) was endorsed for service as Master Of Self-Propelled Vessels Including

Auxiliary Sail ofLess Than 100 Gross Register Tons Upon Inland Waters and entry level rating

endorsements.

4. Between November 2021and August 2022, Respondent operated the vessel MOANA

as Operator approximately 52 times, upon Near Costal waters, in violation of 46 C.F.R.

I 5.401(a).

Based on these facts, the Coast Guard proposes one ([) month outright suspension of

Respondent's Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC).

On or about January 17,Z\23,Respondent filed his Answer, admittting to all

jurisdictional and factual allegations as stated in the Complaint. Respondent also agreed to the

proposed order ofone (l) month outright suspension, with no additional conditions stipulated.
Upon consideration ofthe record, I hereby FND that the allegations in the Complaint are

PROVED BY ANSWER. [ find that between November 2021 and August 2022 Respondent

committed two acts ofviolation of law or regulation, as described by 46 U.S.C g 7703(1)(A) and

defined by 46 C.F.R. $ 5.33.

SA]\CTION

I have carefully reviewed the Complaint and Answer and find that the proposed sanction

is appropriate under the provisions of46 C.F.R. $ 5.569.

WHEREFORE,

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, Respondent's Coast Guard issued MMC is suspended

outright for one (l) month, commencing on the date Respondent's MMC is deposited with

USCG Sector Honolulu.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, service of this decision on the parties and/or parties'

representative(s) serves as notice of appeal rights set forth in 33 C.F.R. S S 20. l00l - 20.1004.

(Attachment A).

Done and dated J anuary 24,2023, at

Alameda- California

Timothy G. Stueve

Administrative Law Judge

U.S. Coast Guard
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 237 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 237

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 22, 2015

     Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign 
                               Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To authorize the revocation or denial of passports and passport cards 
to individuals affiliated with foreign terrorist organizations, 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 ``FTO Passport Revocation Act of 
2015''.

SEC. 2. REVOCATION OR DENIAL OF PASSPORTS TO INDIVIDUALS AFFILIATED 
              WITH FOREIGN TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS.

    The Act entitled ``An Act to regulate the issue and validity of 
passports, and for other purposes'', approved July 3, 1926 (22 U.S.C. 
211a et seq.), commonly known as the ``Passport Act of 1926'', is 
amended by adding at the end the following:

``SEC. 4. AUTHORITY TO DENY OR REVOKE PASSPORT.

    ``(a) Ineligibility.--
            ``(1) Issuance.--Except as provided under subsection (b), 
        the Secretary of State may refuse to issue a passport to any 
        individual whom the Secretary has determined has aided, 
        assisted, abetted, or otherwise helped an organization the 
        Secretary has designated as a foreign terrorist organization 
        pursuant to section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
        (8 U.S.C. 1189).
            ``(2) Revocation.--The Secretary of State may revoke a 
        passport previously issued to any individual described in 
        paragraph (1).
    ``(b) Report.--
            ``(1) In general.--If the Secretary of State refuses to 
        issue or revokes a passport pursuant to subsection (a), the 
        Secretary shall, not later than 30 days after such refusal or 
        revocation, submit to the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the 
        House of Representatives and the Committee on Foreign Relations 
        of the Senate a report on such refusal or revocation, as the 
        case may be.
            ``(2) Form.--The report submitted under paragraph (1) may 
        be submitted in classified or unclassified form.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives July 21, 2015.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
tom_eacobaccix-xtbrsuxaw






DocuSign Envelope ID: BE02709E-4564-41C5-8E4C-BF2095141A0C 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: BE02709E-4564-41C5-8E4C-BF2095141A0C 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: BE02709E-4564-41C5-8E4C-BF2095141A0C 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: BE02709E-4564-41C5-8E4C-BF2095141A0C 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: BE02709E-4564-41C5-8E4C-BF2095141A0C 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: BE02709E-4564-41C5-8E4C-BF2095141A0C 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: BE02709E-4564-41C5-8E4C-BF2095141A0C 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: BE02709E-4564-41C5-8E4C-BF2095141A0C 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: BE02709E-4564-41C5-8E4C-BF2095141A0C 





 






DocuSign Envelope ID: BE02709E-4564-41C5-8E4C-BF2095141A0C August 7
#### The State *v.*Stoutenborough.

Appeal from Selma City Court.

'Tried before tlie Hon. John W. Mabry.

Charles O. Brown, Attorney-General, and W. W. Quarles, for appellant.

Pitts & Pitts, for appellee.

The appeal in this case is from an order of the judge of the City Court of Selma admitting the appellee to bail on his petition for *Habeas corpus.*

Upon the eAddence 'set forth in the transcript, the court is of the opinion the judge erred in admitting the petitioner to bail. Therefore the order granting the bail is reversed and annulled; and judgment entered denying the bail and dismissing the petition.

*Reversed*and rendered.

Opinion by

McClellan, C. J.
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



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of NMT Medical, Inc.
(the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, John E. Ahern, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



(1) the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



|                     |  |                                                    
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 24, 2004 |  | /S/ JOHN E. AHERN                                  
|                     |  | John E. Ahern President and Chief Executive Officer
-. ^ -- 

UNITED STATES OFAMERICA

U.S. DEP-ARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY UNITED STATES COAST CUANN -...- '

TTNITED STATES COAST GUARD

Complainant

vs.

TARA LIN RINKEL.HOMAN,

Respondent.

Docket Number 2023-0062

Enforcement Activity Number 7 6169 4l

CONSENT ORDER

Issued: June 6,2023

By: Honorable George J. Jordan, Administrative Law Judge

On February 15,2023, the Coast Guard filed a Complaint against Tara Lin

Rinkel-Homan (Respondent), alleging one count ofUse of, or addiction to the Use of, or

Addiction to the Use of Dangerous Drugs, in violation of 46 C.F.R. $ 16.201(b) and 46

U.S.C. $ 7704(b). The Coast Guard alleged that Respondent failed a chemical test for

dangerous drugs, raising the presumption of use.

On May 25, 2023, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval of a

Settlement Agreement and Entry ofConsent Order to be approved as a settlement ofthe

case under 33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.
After carefully reviewing the terms of the Setlement I

fair, reasonabre, und in .rb.tunt;-r, ."_; -': :errement 

Agreement, I find that it is

20.s02.1 

tial compliance with the requirements of 33 c.F.R. $

Upon consideration of the record, it is hereby ,RDERED that the settlement

Agreement is AppRO\{ED in full and incorporated herein by ref.erence.

IT IS FURTHER oRDERED that Respondent's Merchant Mariner credentiar is REVOKED. However, the revocation is stayed until August 22, 2024, to permit

Respondent to comprete a rehabiritation program and prove cure in accordance with the

Settlement Agreement.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent complete the terms of the

Settlement Agreement prior to the termination of the stay. If Respondent satisfies the

requirements, this order will reflect an outright suspension for the period ofdeposit to

permit Respondent to complete and prove cure in accordance with the stipulated order

contained in the Settlement Agreement.

ORDER

I The first row ofthe table in Paragraph Six ofthe Settlement Agreement states that ifRespondent

successfully completes the conditions, his Merchant Mariner Credential (MMC) will be suspended for the

period of"outright deposit." I note the term "outright deposit" does not appear in the statutes (46 U.S.C. $$

7701 7706) or regulations (,16 C.F.R. Part 5 and 33 C.F.R. Part 20) goveming these proceedings, nor is

the term found in binding Coast Guard precedent or policy. $99 Marine Safety Manual, Volume V,

"Investigations and Enforcement," COMDTINST M16000.10A (April 2008). While the parties may have

intended to refer to an outright suspension ofthe MMC during the period ofdeposit, I do not find the term

"outright deposit" causes confusion to render the Settlement Agreement ambiguous or worthy ofrejection.

See id. atCh.4, section E.4.a, (p. C,1-57). Thus, I consider "outright deposit" to have the same meaning as

"deposit."
I

I

I

rl

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Consent Order shallconstitute full, final,

and complete adjudication ofthis proceeding.

IT IS SO ORDERED

HON. GEORGE J. JORDAN

UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

Done and

at Seattle,

dated lune 6, 2023,
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**PERICOM
      SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION**





CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      connection with this quarterly report of Pericom Semiconductor Corporation
      (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended December 29, 2007 (the
“Report”), I, Angela Chen, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
      certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63,
      Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my
      knowledge:




(1)
      the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and




(2)
      the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates
      and for the periods indicated.




February
      7, 2008




By:
            /s/
                Angela ChenAngela
                ChenChief
                Financial OfficerPericom
                Semiconductor Corporation
# C_2021039EN.01000101.xml

| 4.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 39/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 39/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10040 — M Group Services/Skanska Infrastructure Services)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 39/01)

On 27 January 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English 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/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10040. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10040. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---