alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Form of MSA Termination Agreement by and among Avago Technologies Limited



 Exhibit 10.1 

Form of MSA Termination Agreement 

This MSA Termination Agreement is entered into as of September 24, 2010 by and among Avago Technologies Limited (the
“Company”), Bali Investments S.àr.l., a Luxembourg company (“Bali”), and the individual appearing on the signature page hereto (the “MSA Participant”). 

RECITALS 

WHEREAS, the MSA Participant previously entered into a Management Shareholders Agreement with the Company and Bali (such agreement, as
amended from time to time, the “MSA”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Company, Bali and the MSA Participant wish to
terminate the MSA with effect from September 27, 2010. 
 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of these premises and for other
good and valuable consideration, the receipt of sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 

AGREEMENT 
 1.
Termination of MSA. The MSA shall be terminated and shall have no further effect as of September 27, 2010, and, for the avoidance of doubt, the parties hereto agree that the MSA Participant shall, as a result of such termination, cease
to have any rights or obligations as a Management Shareholder under that certain Registration Rights Agreement dated as of December 1, 2005 by and among the Company, Bali, investment funds affiliated with Silver Lake Partners, investment funds
affiliated with Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and the other parties thereto. 
 2. Applicable Law. The laws of Singapore shall
govern the interpretation, validity and performance of the terms of this MSA Termination Agreement, regardless of the law that might be applied under principles of conflicts of law. 

3. Counterparts. This MSA Termination Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts and by different parties hereto in separate
counterparts, each of which when so executed shall be deemed to be an original and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement. 

[Signatures Follow] 







 This MSA Termination Agreement is executed as of the date first written above. 

 

			
	AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED
		
	By:	 	  

	Name:	 	
	Title:	 	
	
	BALI INVESTMENTS S.ÀR.L.
		
	By:	 	  

	Name:	 	
	Title:	 	
		
	By:	 	  

	Name:	 	
	Title:	 	
	
	MSA PARTICIPANT
	
	  




[Signature Page to Agreement MSA Termination Agreement]
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 of Stellar Pharmaceuticals Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Janice Clarke, Chief Financial Officer, certify to my knowledge and in my capacity as an officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.



Date:  January 12, 2009



| |                              
| | -----------------------------
| | /s/ JANICE CLARKE            
| | Janice Clarke                
| | Chief Financial Officer      
| | (Principle Financial Officer)



A certification furnished pursuant to this Item will not be deemed filed for purposes of section 18 of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78r), or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the small business issuer specifically incorporates it by reference.
**Exhibit 32**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18U.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-KSB/A of Dwango North America Corp. (the “Company”) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each ofthe undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

 

 

 

/s/ Rick J. Hennessey 

                                                                         

Rick J. Hennessey 

Chief Executive Officer 

 

Dated:August 12, 2004 

 

 

/s/ J. Paul Quinn 

                                                                         

J. Paul Quinn 

Chief Financial Officer 

 

Dated:August 12, 2004
#### James SKINNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 09-16848.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.*

Filed Oct. 12, 2010.

James Skinner, Florence, AZ, pro se.

Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

James Skinner, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging due process and First Amendment violations related to the loss of his personal property. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Resnick v. Hayes,*213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir.2000), and may affirm on any ground supported by the record, *Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP,*534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir.2008). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed all of Skinner’s claims against the Arizona Department of Corrections as barred by the Eleventh Amendment. *See Taylor v. List,*880 F.2d 1040, 1045 (9th Cir.1989) (neither state nor state agency may be sued in federal court without its consent under the Eleventh Amendment).

The district court properly dismissed Skinner’s due process claims against the remaining defendants because the random and unauthorized intentional deprivation of personal property does not give rise to a due process claim where, as here, a meaningful post-deprivation remedy is available under state law. *See Hudson v. Palmer,*468 U.S. 517, 533, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984). Moreover, the district court properly concluded that Skinner’s dissatisfaction with the settlement amount that defendants offered him as reimbursement for the loss of his books did not render the post-deprivation remedy inadequate, especially since he could have filed a tort action in Arizona state court. *See*Ariz.Rev.Stat. §§ 12-821 *et. seq.*

Though not expressly addressed in the district court’s order, Skinner’s First Amendment claim was properly dismissed because the confiscation of his books was random and unauthorized, and not based on their content. *See Thornburgh v. Abbott,*490 U.S. 401, 415-16, 109 S.Ct. 1874, 104 L.Ed.2d 459 (1989) (inmates’ First Amendment claims for denial of access to publications are reviewed for whether access was limited by content-based regulations and their relationship to legitimate penological interests).

The district court properly dismissed the complaint -without leave to amend because the defects could not be cured by amendment. *See McKesson HBOC v.*
      *266
      *New York State Common Ret. Fund, Inc.,*339 F.3d 1087, 1090 (9th Cir.2003).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
S07Y0250.

#### IN THE MATTER OF ARTHUR HURST ENGLISH.

(644 SE2d 137)

Per curiam.

This disciplinary matter is before the Court on the petition of Arthur Hurst English IV for voluntary surrender of his license pending appeal of his felony conviction on three counts of theft by receiving in the Superior Court of Lamar County. Conviction of a felony constitutes a violation of Rule 8.4 (a) (2) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, and the maximum penalty is disbarment.

The State Bar recommends that the Court accept the petition, but order English suspended pending the appeal and states that upon termination of the appeal, it will seek appointment of a special master pursuant to Bar Rule 4-106 (f) (1).

Having considered the petition and response, the Court hereby accepts the voluntary petition and directs that Arthur Hurst English IV be suspended from the practice of law pending the termination of the appeal of his criminal conviction. Following the conclusion of the appeal, the State Bar shall seek appointment of a special master *897pursuant to Bar Rule 4-106 (f) (1). English is reminded of his duties pursuant to Bar Rule 4-219 (c).

Decided April 24, 2007.

*Sexton, Key & Hendrix, Lee Sexton,*for English.

*William P. Smith III, General Counsel State Bar, Jonathan W. Hewett, Assistant General Counsel State Bar,*for State Bar of Georgia.

*Voluntary petition accepted; suspended pending appeal.*

*All the Justices concur.*
**Exhibit
31.2**
 
 **CERTIFICATION-Chief
Financial Officer**
 
 I, Robert
H. Cooper, certify that:
 
 1. I have
reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Republic Airways Holdings Inc.;
 
 2. Based
on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;
 
 3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;
 
 4. The
registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
 
 a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;
 
 b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report, based on such evaluation; and
 
 c)
disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 5. The
registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):
 
 a) all
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and
 
 b) any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting.
 
   **COMPANY NAME
      CORPORATION**Date: March 29,
    2005
    By:
    /s/ Robert H.
    CooperTitle Executive Vice
      President, Chief Financial Officer, Treasure and
Secretary
#### Martin ARISTO, Petitioner, v. Michael B. MUKASEY, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 05-71077.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 26, 2008.*

Filed Sept. 8, 2008.

Kaaren L. Barr, Seattle, WA, for Petitioner.

*597District Director, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the District Counsel, Seattle, WA, Marion E. Guyton, John J. Inkeles, David M. McConnell, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Ronald E. Lefevre, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent.

Before: SCHROEDER, KLEINFELD, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Martin Aristo, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252, we review for substantial evidence, *Singh v. Ashcroft,*367 F.3d 1139, 1143 (9th Cir.2004), and we deny the petition for review.

Substantial record evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that the verbal harassment Aristo repeatedly experienced while walking home from school and the damage to his family’s house in 1998 did not rise to the level of persecution. *See Prasad v. INS,*47 F.3d 336, 339-40 (9th Cir.1995); *Singh v. INS,*134 F.3d 962, 968 (9th Cir.1998). Substantial record evidence also supports the agency’s conclusion that Alisto did not establish a well-founded fear of future persecution. *See Lolong v. Gonzales,*484 F.3d 1173, 1181 (9th Cir.2007) (en banc).

Because Aristo cannot meet his burden to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, he necessarily fails to meet the more stringent standard for withholding of removal. *See Mansour v. Ashcroft,*390 F.3d 667, 673 (9th Cir.2004).

Moreover, substantial evidence supports the agency’s conclusion that Aristo did not establish it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to Indonesia, therefore, we uphold the denial of relief under the CAT. *See Malhi v. INS,*336 F.3d 989, 993 (9th Cir.2003).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
AEGIS SEF | 2829 Technology Forest Boulevard, Suite 260 | The Woodlands, Texas 77381

August 10, 2023

Submitted via Portal

Mr. Christopher J. Kirkpatrick

Office of the Secretariat

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Re: Confidential Treatment Request – Exhibit B - AEGIS SEF Self Certification

Dear Sir:

AEGIS SEF, LLC (“AEGIS SEF”) hereby requests that the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading

Commission (the “Commission”) accord confidential treatment to Exhibit B (“Exhibit”), which 

were submitted to the Commission as 40.2 Listing products for trading by certification on this 

date. This request pertains to all material in the Exhibit. The Exhibit bears the designation 

“Confidential Treatment Requested by AEGIS SEF, LLC.”

This request for confidential treatment is made pursuant to Commission Regulations 40.8, as 

Exhibit contains information that would reveal the trade secrets or confidential commercial or 

financial information of AEGIS SEF and its affiliates. 

Please contact the undersigned at 832-413-5973 or afurman@aegis-sef.com with any questions 

regarding this matter.

Andrew Furman

Chief Compliance Officer

AEGIS SEF, LLC

2829 Technology Forest Blvd

Suite 260

The Woodlands, TX 77381
# C_2010107EN.01001901.xml

| 27.4.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 107/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.4.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 107/19

---

Notice for the attention of the persons, entities and bodies to which restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2010/232/CFSP apply

2010/C 107/11

COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons, entities and bodies that appear in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/232/CFSP (1).

1

Following a review of the list of persons, entities and bodies to which restrictive measures provided for in Council Common Position 2006/318/CFSP (2) on restrictive measures against Burma/Myanmar apply, the Council of the European Union has determined that the persons, entities and bodies that appear in the above-mentioned Annex II fulfil the criteria set out in that Common Position and they should consequently remain subject to the restrictive measures as renewed by Decision 2010/232/CFSP.

2

The attention of the persons, entities and bodies concerned is drawn to the possibility of making an application to the competent authorities of the relevant Member State(s) as indicated in the websites in Annex IV to Council Regulation (EC) No 194/2008 (3), in order to obtain an authorisation to use frozen funds for basic needs or specific payments (cf. Article 13 of the Regulation).

3

The persons, entities and bodies concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned list should be reconsidered. Any such request should be sent to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

The attention of the persons, entities and bodies concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council's decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, 2nd paragraph, and Article 263, 4th and 6th paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 105, 27.4.2010, p. 22.

1

(2)  OJ L 116, 29.4.2006, p. 77.

2

(3)  OJ L 66, 10.3.2008, p. 1.

3

---
Exhibit 10.1



 






Exhibit 10.1




INTERCHANGE CORPORATION

Board of Directors Compensation Plan

Effective 1/1/05

Amended 10/14/05




	 	 	 
	Non-employee Director Compensation:
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	Annual retainer
	 	$20,000.00
	 
	 	 
	Board of Director’s meeting attended in person
	 	$1,500.00 per meeting
	Board of Director’s meeting attended telephonically
	 	$750.00 per meeting
	 
	 	 
	Audit Committee Chairman annual retainer
	 	$10,000.00
	 
	 	 
	Nominating, Compensation and Governance

Committee Chairmen annual retainer
	 	$7,500.00
	 
	 	 
	Committee meeting attended
	 	$1,200.00 per meeting
	 
	 	 
	Stock Option Grants (all Directors):
	 	 
	 
	 	 
	Annual Grant
	 	15,000 shares
	 
	 	 
	Grant to new Director’s (first year)
	 	20,000 shares






New Directors will also receive a pro-rata amount of the Annual Grant.



Stock options vest 50% at the time of grant, and the remaining portions vest in equal amounts over
the next twelve months.
Exhibit 10.7

Amendmentof October 8, 2006 to CNS, Inc. 1989 Employee Stock Purchase Plan.

The 2006-2 Phase of the ESPP shall terminate the
earlier of December 31, 2006 or immediately prior to the Effective Time of the Merger, no new employee shall become eligible for
the 2006-02 Phase of the ESPP prior to such termination date, and options under the 2006-2 Phase of the ESPP outstanding as of the
Effective Time be cancelled in exchange for a cash payment equal to the product of: (i) the whole number of shares (rounded down
to the nearest whole number) that the participant would have been entitled to purchase under the ESPP as of the date of
termination of the 2006-2 Phase; and (ii) the excess, if any, of the Merger Consideration over the exercise price of such shares
as determined under Section 8(a)(ii) of the ESPP.

---
Exhibit 5.1





July 3, 2008

        Michele D. Vaillancourt
Direct Dial:  (612) 604-6681
Direct Fax:  (612) 604-6881
mvaillancourt@winthrop.com




Image Sensing Systems, Inc.

500 Spruce Tree Centre

1600 University Avenue West

St. Paul, Minnesota  55104



Re:

        Registration Statement on Form S-8




Ladies and Gentlemen:

We have acted as counsel to Image Sensing Systems, Inc., a Minnesota corporation (the Company), in connection with the registration by the Company of 138,800 shares (the Shares) of its common stock, $0.01 par value, pursuant to the Companys Registration Statement on Form S-8 to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 3, 2008 (the Registration Statement).

In connection therewith, we have examined (a) the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of the Company; (b) the corporate proceedings of the Company relative to its organization and to the authorization and issuance of the Shares; and (c) the Registration Statement and the prospectus prepared in connection with the Registration Statement (Prospectus).  In addition to such examination, we have reviewed such other proceedings, documents and records and have ascertained or verified such additional facts as we deem necessary or appropriate for purposes of this opinion.

Based upon the foregoing, we are of the opinion that:

1.

        The Company has been legally incorporated and is validly existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota.


2.

        All necessary corporate action has been taken by the Company to authorize the issuance of the Shares.


3.

        The Shares are validly authorized by the Companys Articles of Incorporation and when issued and paid for as contemplated in the Registration Statement and prospectus, will be validly issued, fully paid, and non-assessable.


We hereby consent to the filing of this opinion as an exhibit to the Registration Statement.

Very truly yours,

WINTHROP & WEINSTINE, P.A.



By 

        /s/ Michele D. VaillancourtMichele D. Vaillancourt




---
# C_2020019EN.01003802.xml

| 20.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 19/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 19/38

---

Order of the President of the Sixth Chamber of the Court of 14 August 2019 — Nestlé Unternehmungen Deutschland GmbH v Lotte Co. Ltd, European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIP)

(C-580/18 P) (1)

(2020/C 19/41)

Language of the case: German.

The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 25, 21.1.2019.

---
#### STATE v. ARTIS

No. 316P98

Case below: 129 N.C.App. 648

Petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 November 1998.
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, Stefan J. Murry, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.;
 and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: May 14, 2015



|/s/ Stefan
    J. Murry | 
|----------------------- | 
|Stefan J. Murry         | 
|Chief Financial Officer |