alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w01



 





Exhibit 10.01




	 	 	 
	News
Release
	 






	 	 	 
	Company Contacts:

	 	Jeffrey Hall
	 

	 	Chief Financial Officer
	 

	 	(408) 875-6800
	 

	 	Jeff.hall@kla-tencor.com
	 
	 	 
	 

	 	Kyra Whitten (Media)
	 

	 	Sr. Director, Corporate Communications
	 

	 	(408) 875-7819
	 

	 	Kyra.whitten@kla-tencor.com






FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE




KLA-TENCOR DECLARES REGULAR CASH DIVIDEND FOR

SECOND QUARTER FISCAL YEAR 2007



SAN JOSE, Calif., November 6, 2006—KLA-Tencor Corporation (NASDAQ: KLAC) today announced that
its Board of Directors has declared a quarterly cash dividend of $.12 per share on its common stock
payable on December 1, 2006 to KLA-Tencor stockholders of record on November 15, 2006.



About KLA-Tencor: KLA-Tencor is the world leader in yield management and process control
solutions for semiconductor manufacturing and related industries. Headquartered in San Jose,
Calif., the company has sales and service offices around the world. An S&P 500 company, KLA-Tencor
is traded on the Nasdaq National Market under the symbol KLAC. Additional information about the
company is available on the Internet at http://www.kla-tencor.com




###
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Todd R. MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18243.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two.

April 12, 1993.

*422No appearance for plaintiff-respondent.

Tracy L. Edingfield, Asst. Public Defender, Joplin, for defendant-appellant.

PREWITT, Judge.

Following nonjury trial defendant-appellant was found guilty of driving while intoxicated and failure to stop at a stop sign. Defendant contends that there was insufficient evidence to support each conviction as the trial court did not “correctly appraise the testimony of David Engersol and Appellant.” Engersol was a witness called at defendant’s request.

Defendant cites one case under his points relied on, *State v. Walker,*505 S.W.2d 119 (Mo.App.1973), but does not cite or discuss it in the argument portion of his brief. Other than stating the well known standard of reviewing the sufficiency of evidence to support a conviction, its relevancy escapes us.

In determining whether the evidence is sufficient to support a criminal conviction, “the evidence and all reasonable inferences must be considered in the light most favorable to the state and all evidence and inferences to the contrary disregarded.” *State v. Williams,*600 S.W.2d 120, 121 (Mo.App.1980). On fact questions turning on credibility this court ordinarily defers to the trial court’s determination. *City of Springfield v. Hines,*622 S.W.2d 32, 34 (Mo.App.1981).

As the trier of fact the trial judge can believe all or part of a witness’ testimony and reject the rest and can disbelieve testimony even if uncontradicted. *Rollins v. Schwyhart,*587 S.W.2d 364, 367 (Mo.App.1979).

The testimony of the arresting officer alone was sufficient to support both convictions. The trial judge was not required to believe defendant or his witness.

The judgment is affirmed.

MONTGOMERY, P.J., and FLANIGAN, J., concur.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5787 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow, without regard 

to disability, individuals eligible for veterans benefits to contribute to 

health savings accounts. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 28, 2023 

Mr. CAREY (for himself, Mr. GOLDEN of Maine, Mr. KELLY of Pennsylvania, 

Mr. FEENSTRA, and Ms. MALLIOTAKIS) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow, 

without regard to disability, individuals eligible for veterans benefits to contribute to health savings accounts. 

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 ‘‘Veterans HSA Access 

5 Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5787 IH

1 SEC. 2. INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT SERVICE-CONNECTED DIS2 ABILITY AND ELIGIBLE FOR CERTAIN VET3 ERANS BENEFITS PERMITTED TO CON4 TRIBUTE TO HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 223(c)(1)(C) of the Inter6 nal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘for 

7 a service-connected disability (within the meaning of sec8 tion 101(16) of title 38, United States Code)’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

11 December 31, 2025. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-50054 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee

v. RAVIS DONNELL KENNEDY Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 6:07-CR-126-2
Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Ravis Donnell Kennedy appeals from the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine and crack cocaine and possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine. Kennedy argues on appeal that the district court erred by converting 80.28 grams ofpowder cocaine found in his codefendant’s residence intoan equivalent amount of crack cocaine when determining his sentence. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D December 18, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 08-50054

2 This court reviews the sentencing court’s findings of fact f or clear error
and its application of the Sentencing Guidelines de novo. U nited States v. Burns, 526 F.3d 852, 859 (5th Cir. 2008). Based upon the evidence regarding Kennedy and his codefendant’s crack cocaine dealings, it was foreseeable to Kennedy that the powder cocaine located in the codefendant’s residence would be converted into crack cocaine. See United States v. Booker, 334 F.3d 406, 414 (5th Cir. 2003). The district court therefore did not clearly err by converting the 80.28 grams of powder cocaine into an equivalent amount of crack cocaine for sentencing purposes. See Burns, 526 F.3d at 859. Moreover, to the extent that Kennedy relies upon Kimbrough v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 558 (2007), his argument lacks merit because the crack/powder disparity discussed in Kimbrough does not prohibit a district court from c onverting powder cocaine into crack cocaine for sentencing purposes when it is otherwise appropriate for it to do so. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.
1

The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of

Minnesota, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-1581

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Western District of Missouri

*

Bruce Allen Johnson, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 21, 2010

Filed: August 2, 2011

___________

Before MELLOY and BENTON, Circuit Judges, and DOTY,1

 District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Following a jury trial, Bruce Johnson was convicted pursuant to 21 U.S.C.

§ 843(b) for using a telephone to facilitate the commission of a felony controlledsubstance offense, namely possession with the intent to distribute marijuana. On

appeal, Johnson challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, and we affirmed. We held

that a reasonable jury could have concluded Johnson's telephone call to his codefendant requesting marijuana facilitated his co-defendant's felony drug offense of

possessing with the intent to distribute marijuana. United States v. Rodebaugh, 561
-2-

F.3d 864, 870 (8th Cir. 2009). The Supreme Court subsequently reversed and

remanded the case for further consideration in light of Abuelhawa v. United States,

129 S. Ct. 2102 (2009). Johnson v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 1136 (2010). In

Abuelhawa, the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split on the meaning of the word

"facilitate" in § 843(b) and held that the use of a telephone to make a misdemeanor

drug purchase does not "facilitate" the felony offense of narcotics distribution.

Abuelhawa, 129 S. Ct. at 2104. In this case, the relevant jury instruction permitted the

jury to convict Johnson either under the theory that his use of the telephone to

purchase marijuana from his co-defendant facilitated his own felony drug offense of

possession with the intent to distribute or under the theory that his use of the telephone

facilitated his co-defendant's felony drug-distribution offense. Since the latter theory

would allow the jury to convict on the basis of misdemeanor purchases, we believe

the jury instruction is over-inclusive and runs afoul of Abuelhawa. Given that such

an error cannot be considered harmless on this record, we reverse and remand to the

district court for a new trial. See United States v. Fiorito, 640 F.3d 338, 349 (8th Cir.

2011).

______________________________
J

- A04021

- 20

NON

- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

CHARLES DAVIS, ADMINISTRATOR

OF THE ESTATE OF DORA RAMEY

DECEASED

v.

1245 CHURCH ROAD OPERATIONS, LLC D/B/A HILLCREST CENTER, GENESIS PA HOLDINGS LLC., AND

ALBERT EINSTEIN MEDICAL CENTER

APPEAL OF: 1245 CHURCH ROAD OPERATIONS, LLC D/B/A HILLCREST

CENTER AND GENESIS PA HOLDINGS

LLC. :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 3539 EDA 2018

Appeal from the Order Entered November 20, 2018 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County

Civil Division at No(s): 1712 01820

BEFORE: PANELLA, P.J., STRASSBURGER, J. * , and COLINS, J. *

DISSENTING STATEMENT BY PANELLA, P.J.: Filed: April 16, 2020

I would affirm on the basis of the trial court’s opinion.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 92 (Friday, May 10, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 21474]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11651]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Health Care Financing Administration
[R-66]


Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB 
Review; Comment Request

    In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Health Care Financing 
Administration (HCFA), Department of Health and Human Services, has 
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the following 
proposal for the collection of information. Interested persons are 
invited to send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other 
aspect of this collection of information, including any of the 
following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed 
information collection for the proper performance of the agency's 
functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to 
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be 
collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other 
forms of information technology to minimize the information collection 
burden.
    Type of Information Collection Request: Reinstatement, without 
change, of previously approved collection for which approval has 
expired; Title of Information Collection: Hospice Core Service: Nursing 
Information Collection; Form No.: HCFA-R-66; Use: Hospice applying for 
a waiver to the nursing core services requirements must submit 
documentation to HCFA supporting their request. Frequency: Other, one 
time only; Affected Public: Business or other for-profits and Not-for-
profit institutes; Number of Respondents: 1; Total Annual Responses: 1; 
Total Annual Hours Requested: 1.
    To request copies of the proposed paperwork collections referenced 
above, E-mail your request, including your address, to 
P<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2849584d5a5f475a4368404b4e49064f475e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6a0b1a0f181d0518012a02090c0b440d051c">[email protected]</span></a>, or call the Reports Clearance Office on (410) 786-
1326. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collections should be sent within 30 days of this notice directly to 
the OMB Desk Officer designated at the following address: OMB Human 
Resources and Housing Branch, Attention: Allison Eydt, New Executive 
Office Building, Room 10235, Washington, D.C. 20503.

    Dated: May 2, 1996.
Kathleen B. Larson,
Director, Management Planning and Analysis Staff, Office of Financial 
and Human Resources, Health Care Financing Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-11651 Filed 5-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4120-03-P

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
AMENDMENT TO NOTICE OF
STOCK OPTION GRANT 



        THIS
AMENDMENT TO NOTICE OF STOCK OPTION GRANT (this “Amendment”) is made and
entered into as of __________, 200__ by and between Auriga Laboratories, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the “Company”), and ______________________, an individual (the
“Optionee”). 



RECITALS 



        WHEREAS,
the Company issued to the Optionee a Notice of Stock Option Grant and Stock Option
Agreement dated July 6, 2006 (the “Option”), pursuant to which the Optionee may
purchase from the Company up to ____ shares of common stock of the Company. 



        WHEREAS,
the Stock Plan of the Company provides that the Option may be amended by the written
agreement of the Company and the Optionee, and the Company and the Optionee desire to so
amend the Option in accordance with the terms set forth herein. 



AGREEMENT 



        NOW
THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the respective covenants and
agreements hereinafter set forth, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties
hereto agree as follows: 



        1.              The
row entitled “Exercise Price Per Share” of the Notice of Stock           Option
Grant shall be deleted in its entirety and the following shall be           substituted
therefor:  




“Exercise Price Per
Share:          1.38” 



        2.              From
and after the date of this Amendment, the references in the Option to           “this
Option,” “the Notice,” “hereof,”          “hereunder” or
words of like import shall be deemed to mean the Option           as modified and amended
by this Amendment.  




        3.              Defined
terms used and not defined in this Amendment shall have the same           meanings
assigned to them in the Option.  




        4.              Except
as expressly modified and amended pursuant to this Amendment, all of the           terms
and provisions of the Option shall remain in full force and effect.  




        5.              This
Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall           be
deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the           same
instrument.  




        6.              This
Amendment shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of           the
State of Delaware without regard to choice of law principles.  














        7.              BY
SIGNING THIS AMENDMENT, THE OPTIONEE WILL BE SUBJECT TO CERTAIN FEDERAL AND
          STATE TAX CONSEQUENCES. THE OPTIONEE SHOULD CONSULT A TAX ADVISER BEFORE
          EXECUTING THIS AMENDMENT.  




        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date and year
first above written. 



		
	AURIGA LABORATORIES, INC.	[NAME OF OPTIONEE]
	

By: ____________________________________	_____________________________________
	Name: __________________________________	
	Title: ___________________________________	














-2-
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.01
 
                                THE 3DO COMPANY
 
                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
                     (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                FOR THE YEARS ENDED MARCH 31,
                                                              ---------------------------------
                                                               1997         1996         1995
                                                              -------     --------     --------
<S>                                                           <C>         <C>          <C>
Net income (loss)...........................................  $13,271     $(34,668)    $(46,262)
                                                              =======     ========     ========
Weighted average number of shares outstanding: Common stock
  (1)(2)....................................................   27,662       25,456       22,697
Number of common stock equivalents as a result of stock
  options outstanding.......................................    1,441           --           --
                                                              -------     --------     --------
Total.......................................................   29,103
                                                              =======     ========     ========
Net income (loss) per common share..........................  $  0.46     $  (1.36)    $  (2.04)
                                                              =======     ========     ========
</TABLE>
 
---------------
 
(1) This schedule should be read in conjunction with Note A, "Summary of the
    Company and Significant Accounting Policies. Net Income (Loss) Per Share" in
    the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.
 
(2) The computation for net income (loss) per share for the years ended March
    31, 1997, 1996 and 1995, includes 23,264 shares, 90,090 shares and 490,090
    shares, respectively, of common stock to be issued under the stock incentive
    program, described in Note J in the Notes to Consolidated Financial
    Statements.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

Certification Required by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350         (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) 

In connection with the filing by Assure Data, Inc. (the "Company") of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 (the "Report"), the undersigned hereby certifies: 

> 
1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

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

| Date: August 10, 2009 |   |   |                                                  |   |   |
|-----------------------|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                       |   |   | /s/ Robert Lisle                                 |   |   |
|                       |   |   | Robert Lisle, Chief Executive Officer  |   |   |
|                       |   |   | and Chief Financial and Accounting               |   |   |
|                       |        |        | Officer and President                            |        |        |
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report
of China Infrastructure Investment Corp. (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his
knowledge:




1. The Report fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 operation of the Company.




Date: May 15,
      2009
              
              /s/ Li
      XipengName:
      Li XipengTitle:
      Chief Executive Officer, Principal Executive Officer Chairman of the
      Board




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the
Company and furnished to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
IIB 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5799 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 22, 2024 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the checkpoint of the United States Border 

Patrol located on United States Highway 90 West in 

Uvalde County, Texas, as the ‘‘James R. Dominguez 

Border Patrol Checkpoint’’. 

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


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

HR 5799 RFS

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘James R. Dominguez 

3 Memorial Act of 2023’’. 

4 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

5 Congress finds the following: 

6 (1) A native of San Antonio, Texas, Border Pa7 trol Agent James R. Dominguez— 

8 (A) proudly and honorably served his coun9 try as an agent of the U.S. Border Patrol for 

10 more than 12 years; 

11 (B) began his service with the U.S. Border 

12 Patrol in 2000; and 

13 (C) graduated as part of the 434th session 

14 of the Border Patrol Academy. 

15 (2) Agent Dominguez served at the Uvalde Sta16 tion in the Del Rio Sector. 

17 (3) On July 19, 2012, Agent Dominguez 

18 stopped to clear debris from the roadway that posed 

19 risks to road and community safety along Highway 

20 90 near Cline, Texas. While on scene, Agent 

21 Dominguez was struck and killed by a passing vehi22 cle. 

23 (4) Agent Dominguez is survived by his wife 

24 and 4 children. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

HR 5799 RFS

1 SEC. 3. DESIGNATION. 

2 The checkpoint of the United States Border Patrol 

3 located on United States Highway 90 West in Uvalde 

4 County, Texas, shall be known and designated as the 

5 ‘‘James R. Dominguez Border Patrol Checkpoint’’. 

6 SEC. 4. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the check9 point described in section 3 shall be deemed to be a ref10 erence to the ‘‘James R. Dominguez Border Patrol Check11 point’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 21, 2024. 

Attest: KEVIN F. MCCUMBER, 

Clerk. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB