alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4.4


 


Eltek Ltd.


 


20 Ben Zion Gelis Street, Sgoola Industrial Zone,


Petach Tikva 4927920, Israel


 


________, 2019


 


To holders of ordinary shares of Eltek Ltd.:


 


Enclosed are the prospectus supplement and other materials relating to a Rights Offering by Eltek Ltd.  Please carefully review the prospectus, which describes how you can participate in the Rights Offering.  You will be able to exercise your subscription rights to purchase Ordinary Shares (as defined below) only during a limited period.  You should also refer to the detailed Instructions as to Use of Subscription Certificates, which is attached to this letter.  All exercises of subscription rights are irrevocable.


 


The following is a summary of the terms of the Rights Offering:






	





	
 

	
☐

	
 You will receive five non-transferable subscription right for every three Ordinary Share you hold of record at the close of business on March 18, 2019. We will not issue fractional subscription rights or cash in lieu of fractional subscription rights. Fractional subscription rights will be rounded down to the nearest whole number. 


 


	
 

	
☐

	
 You may purchase one ordinary share, par value NIS 3.00 of Eltek Ltd. (“Ordinary Share”)  for each whole subscription right you receive at a subscription price of $1.464 per share. 







	
 

	
☐

	
If you exercise in full the subscription rights issued to you, you may subscribe for additional ordinary shares through the Over-Subscription right, as more fully described in the prospectus supplement.







	
 

	
☐

	

 The Rights Offering will expire at 5:00 p.m., New York City Time (midnight, Israel time), on April 9, 2019. We may not extend the expiration date of the Rights Offering. If you do not exercise your subscription rights before that time, they will expire and will have no monetary value. 


 




	
 

	
☐

	
You cannot revoke or change the exercise of either your Subscription Rights or Over-Subscription Rights.







	
 

	
☐

	
If your Ordinary Shares are held in the name of a bank, dealer or other nominee, you must contact your bank, dealer or other nominee if you wish to participate in the Rights Offering.









 


 If you have any questions concerning the Rights Offering, please feel free to contact us at (972) 3-9395025 or the Information Agent for the Rights Offering, D.F. King, toll free at: (808)-283-2170. 


 




	
 


 

	
Very truly yours,


 


ELTEK LTD.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-1629

NIDELKA BENSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

MRS. MARY HINMAN; MRS. GAIL FORD; MRS. CAROL

EWING,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior

District Judge. (3:06-cv-00825-REP)

Submitted: November 16, 2007 Decided: December 3, 2007

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nidelka Benson, Appellant Pro Se. Gary M. Nuckols, Andrew Philip

Sherrod, HIRSCHLER, FLEISCHER, Richmond, Virginia; Walter Jervis

Sheffield, WALTER J. SHEFFIELD, ATTORNEY AT LAW PC, Fredericksburg,

Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM: 

Nidelka Benson appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting

Defendants’ motions to dismiss her complaint brought under the Fair

Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 201-219 (“FLSA”) (West 1998 &

Supp. 2007). We have reviewed the record and find Benson’s

claims, filed more than three years after their accrual, barred by

the FLSA’s statute of limitations. See 29 U.S.C. § 255(a) (1998).

We further find the district court did not abuse its discretion in

refusing to equitably toll the statute of limitations. We

therefore affirm the district court’s dismissal of Benson’s

complaint on this ground. We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately addressed in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

ROBERT DEMISON, III, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:23-CV-177

§

BRYIAN COLLIER, et al., §

§

Defendants. §

ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE 

JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff Robert Demison, III, an inmate confined at the Polunsky Unit of the Texas

Department of Criminal Justice, CorrectionalInstitutions Division, proceeding pro se, brought this

lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court referred this matter to the Honorable Christine

L. Stetson, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to

applicable laws and orders of this court. The magistrate judge recommends denying plaintiff’s

motions for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. To date, the parties have not

filed objections to the report.

The court received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States

Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such referral, along with the record, pleadings and all available

evidence. After careful review, the court finds that the findings of fact and conclusions of law of

the United States Magistrate Judge are correct.

Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge is

ADOPTED. It is 

ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining

order (#s 4 and 15) are DENIED.

Case 9:23-cv-00177-MAC-CLS Document 29 Filed 09/16/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 235
2

Case 9:23-cv-00177-MAC-CLS Document 29 Filed 09/16/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 236
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TEXARKANA DIVISION

OPTIMORPHIX, INC.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

BROADCOM INC.,

 Defendant.

Civil Action No. 5:23-cv-134-RWS-JBB

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, Plaintiff OptiMorphix, Inc., (“Plaintiff”), and files this Unopposed Motion 

for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint and shows the Court as follows:

On January 26, 2024, Broadcom Inc. (“Broadcom”) filed its Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No.

13). Among other issues, Broadcom argued that its subsidiary, CA, Inc. (“CA”) is the proper 

Defendant (as opposed to Broadcom) in the above-captioned action in view of the allegations in 

the Complaint (Dkt. No. 1).

After meeting and conferring, Plaintiff, Broadcom, and CA have agreed, subject to the 

Court’s approval, to substitute CA as the named Defendant in the above-captioned action. 

Pursuant to this agreement, Plaintiff has agreed to amend its Complaint and file a First Amended 

Complaint on February 23, 2024.

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint will not change the patents asserted in the case nor 

the products accused of infringing each respective patent. The purpose of the amendment will be 

to substitute CA for Broadcom and to update the allegations of knowledge of the patents-in-suit 

consistent with this substitution.

Case 5:23-cv-00134-RWS-JBB Document 22 Filed 02/23/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 359
Page 2 of 2

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), Plaintiff has secured the written 

consent of both Broadcom and CA to file its First Amended Complaint.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court grant leave to Plaintiff to file 

its First Amended Complaint.

. 

Dated: February 23, 2024 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Daniel P. Hipskind____________________

Dorian S. Berger (CA SB No. 264424)

Daniel P. Hipskind (CA SB No. 266763)

Erin E. McCracken (CA SB No. 244523)

BERGER & HIPSKIND LLP

9538 Brighton Way, Ste. 320

Beverly Hills, CA 90210

Telephone: 323-886-3430

Facsimile: 323-978-5508

E-mail: dsb@bergerhipskind.com

E-mail: dph@bergerhipskind.com

E-mail: eem@bergerhipskind.com

Elizabeth L. DeRieux

State Bar No. 05770585

Capshaw DeRieux, LLP

114 E. Commerce Ave.

Gladewater, TX 75647

Telephone: 903-845-5770

E-mail: ederieux@capshawlaw.com

Attorneys for OptiMorphix, Inc.

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

The undersigned hereby certifies that counsel for Plaintiff met and conferred with counsel 

for Broadcom Inc. and CA, Inc. and this motion is unopposed.

/s/ Daniel P. Hipskind 

Case 5:23-cv-00134-RWS-JBB Document 22 Filed 02/23/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 360
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

 

TEXAS MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, et 

al., 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF 

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, 

et al., 

 Defendants. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 6:23-cv-59-JDK 

ORDER ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT BRIEFING AND SETTING HEARING 

Before the Court is the parties’ joint request for expedited briefing on summary 

judgment in this case. The Court hereby GRANTS the motion. 

It is therefore ORDERED that the briefing schedule for summary judgment 

in this case is as follows: 

Plaintiffs’ motions for summary judgment February 13, 2023 

Amicus curiae briefs supporting plaintiffs February 20, 2023 

Defendants’ opposition/cross-motion for summary 

judgment 

March 15, 2023 

Amicus curiae briefs supporting defendants March 22, 2023 

Plaintiffs’ oppositions/replies in support of summary 

judgment

March 27, 2023 

Defendants’ reply in support of summary judgment April 7, 2023 

Plaintiffs may file a summary judgment motion of up to 30 pages and an 

opposition/reply brief of up to 20 pages. Defendants may file an opposition/crossmotion for summary judgment of up to 30 pages and a reply brief of up to 20 pages. 

Amicus curiae need not file motions for leave before filing briefs. 

Case 6:23-cv-00059-JDK Document 17 Filed 02/13/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 118
2 

Further, the Court hereby sets the parties’ summary judgment motions for an 

in-person hearing on April 19, 2023, at 2:00 p.m., at the William M. Steger Federal 

Building and United States Courthouse, 211 West Ferguson Street, Tyler, TX 75702. 

Finally, Defendants’ obligation to answer the complaints in these actions is 

waived. 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13th February, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00059-JDK Document 17 Filed 02/13/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 119
```
 
 
CRUDE OIL, LIGHT SWEET - ICE FUTURES EUROPE                          Code-067411
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 01/22/13                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF 1,000 BARRELS)                         OPEN INTEREST:      480,148
COMMITMENTS
  71,949   49,674  124,062  264,460  285,782  460,471  459,518   19,677   20,630

CHANGES FROM 01/15/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:    -26,292)
    -990   -1,913  -17,591   -8,724   -7,286  -27,305  -26,790    1,013      498

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
    15.0     10.3     25.8     55.1     59.5     95.9     95.7      4.1      4.3

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      147)
      35       36       54       67       64      133      128
```

----

Updated January 25, 2013
Lewis Alan DUGAN, Petitioner, v. WYOMING.

No. 19-999

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 9, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Wyoming denied.
Alfredo GODOY-MACHUCA, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7352

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
**EXHIBIT32**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report on Form 10-K of Gaming Partners InternationalCorporation for the year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), GérardCharlier, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company and Melody Sullivan, asChief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that, to the best of his or her knowledge:

1.                The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

|                            | GAMING PARTNERS  INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION |
|----------------------------|--------------------------------------------|
| Date: March 31,  2006 | By:                                        | /s/ GÉRARD CHARLIER |
|                       | * *                                   | Gérard Charlier,*President and Chief Executive Officer* |
| Date: March 31,  2006 | By:                                        | /s/ MELODY SULLIVAN |
|                       | * *                                   | Melody Sullivan,*Chief Financial Officer* |

 

This certification is being furnished to the SEC as anexhibit to the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of § 18 of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed copy of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided by the Company and will be retained by the Company andfurnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
Robert LEHMANN, Petitioner v. Scott KERNAN, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

No. 18-9509

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
```
 
 
VIX FUTURES - CBOE FUTURES EXCHANGE                                  Code-1170E1
OPTION AND FUTURES COMBINED POSITIONS AS OF 10/01/13          |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  Long  | Short  |Spreads |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short  |  Long  | Short
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
($1000 X INDEX)                                      OPEN INTEREST:      356,219
COMMITMENTS
  85,412  167,354   76,330  170,096   85,953  331,838  329,637   24,381   26,582

CHANGES FROM 09/24/13 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:    -12,013)
  -8,614   -8,206    6,181  -10,380   -9,772  -12,813  -11,797      800     -216

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADER
    24.0     47.0     21.4     47.8     24.1     93.2     92.5      6.8      7.5

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:      161)
      52       64       64       33       34      119      135
```

----

Updated October 25, 2013
Terreall MCDANIEL, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-6078

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 2, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

MAX KELLY

v.

CHARLES MEADOR II, ET AL.

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL NO. 4:23-CV-78-SDJ

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Christine A. Nowak, 

who issued a Report and Recommendation concluding that Plaintiff’s lawsuit should 

be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution. (Dkt. #12). The Report and 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, which contains proposed findings of fact 

and recommendations for the disposition of such action, has been presented for 

consideration. No objections having been timely filed, the Court concludes that the 

findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and adopts the same as 

the findings and conclusions of the Court.

It is therefore ORDERED that Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without 

prejudice. All motions by either party not previously ruled on are hereby DENIED.

Case 4:23-cv-00078-SDJ-AGD Document 15 Filed 03/15/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 39
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 23-50348

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Hector Josue Valeviano, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:21-CR-796-1

______________________________

Before Willett, Duncan, and Ramirez, Circuit Judges. 

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Hector Josue 

Valeviano has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Valeviano has not filed a response. We have 

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 7, 2024

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 23-50348 Document: 42-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/07/2024
No. 23-50348

2

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for 

leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 

responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. 

R. 42.2.

Case: 23-50348 Document: 42-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/07/2024
Lawrence I. FEJOKWU, Petitioner, v. COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

No. 19-132

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Pedro J. AMARO, Petitioner, v. Hector BALDERAS, Attorney General of New Mexico, et al.

No. 19-6532.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 9, 2020.

Petition for rehearing denied.
I

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2231

To amend section 107 of the Housing and Community Development Act

of 1974 to authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development

to make grants from community development block grant amounts to

the City of Youngstown, Ohio, for the construction of a community

center and the renovation of a sports complex in such city.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 15, 1999

Mr. TRAFICANT introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Banking and Financial Services

A BILL

To amend section 107 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 to authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development to make grants from community development block grant amounts to the City

of Youngstown, Ohio, for the construction of a community center and the renovation of a sports complex in

such city.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Youngstown Commu5 nity Center Development Act of 1999’’.
2

•HR 2231 IH

1 SEC. 2. CDBG SPECIAL PURPOSE GRANTS.

2 Section 107(a)(1) of the Housing and Community

3 Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5307(a)(1)) is

4 amended—

5 (1) in the matter preceding subparagraph (A)—

6 (A) by striking ‘‘$60,000,000’’ and insert7 ing ‘‘$75,000,000’’; and

8 (B) by striking ‘‘subsection (b)’’ and in9 serting ‘‘this section’’; and

10 (2) by striking subparagraph (G) and inserting

11 the following new subparagraph:

12 ‘‘(G) in fiscal year 2000—

13 ‘‘(i) $15,000,000 shall be available for

14 a grant to the City of Youngstown, Ohio,

15 for the construction of a community center

16 in such city; and

17 ‘‘(ii) $2,000,000 shall be available for

18 a grant to the City of Youngstown, Ohio,

19 for the renovation and refurbishing of the

20 Sports Complex (formerly known as South

21 Field House) in such city;’’.

Æ
Quintin Irving BROWN, Petitioner, v. CITY OF RICHMOND, VIRGINIA.

No. 18-9741

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.
Timothy WEAKLEY, petitioner, v. EAGLE LOGISTICS, et al.

No. 18-6694.

Supreme Court of the United States

Jan. 7, 2019.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
`DTCC Repo-US Treasury <30 YR - NYSE LIFFE - NYPC                     Code-045L2T
FUTURES ONLY POSITIONS AS OF 09/18/12                         |
--------------------------------------------------------------| NONREPORTABLE
      NON-COMMERCIAL      |   COMMERCIAL    |      TOTAL      |   POSITIONS
--------------------------|-----------------|-----------------|-----------------
  LONG  | SHORT  |SPREADS |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT  |  LONG  | SHORT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(CONTRACTS OF $5,000,000)                            OPEN INTEREST:       37,020
COMMITMENTS
   3,268   18,661    1,885   30,851   15,501   36,004   36,047    1,016      973

CHANGES FROM 09/11/12 (CHANGE IN OPEN INTEREST:      7,301)
    -236     -610      608    6,085    6,483    6,457    6,481      844      820

PERCENT OF OPEN INTEREST FOR EACH CATEGORY OF TRADERS
     8.8     50.4      5.1     83.3     41.9     97.3     97.4      2.7      2.6

NUMBER OF TRADERS IN EACH CATEGORY (TOTAL TRADERS:       34)
       8        7        5       16       15       26       25`

---

Updated September 21, 2012
Acharayya RUPAK, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 19-7268

Supreme Court of the United States.

Feb. 24, 2020

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied. Petitioner allowed until March 16, 2020, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.