alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Offer Letter Agrmnt by and between the Registrant & Ashok Singhal



 Exhibit 10.29 
 3 PARDATA, INC. 
 13596 Deer Trail Court 
 Saratoga, CA 95070 
 April 19, 1999 
 Ashok Singhal 
 [address] 
 Re: Offer of Employment 
 Dear Ashok: 
 I am pleased to offer you a position with 3 Pardata, Inc. (the “Company”) as Chief Technical Officer commencing on Monday, April 26, 1999
at an annual salary of $165,000.00, which will be paid semi-monthly in accordance with the Company’s normal payroll procedures. 
 I
will recommend to the Board of Directors of the Company that, at the next Board meeting, you be granted the right to purchase up to 550,000 shares of Common Stock of the Company at the then current fair market value as determined by the Board at
that meeting. Such options shall be subject to the terms and conditions of the Company’s standard form of Restricted Stock Purchase Agreement. 
 You should be aware that your employment with the Company is for no specified period and constitutes at-will employment. As a result, you are free to resign at any time, for any reason or for no reason. Similarly, the Company is free to
conclude its employment relationship with you at any time, with or without cause. 
 For purposes of federal immigration law, you will be
required to provide to the Company documentary evidence of your identity and eligibility for employment in the United States. Such documentation must be provided to us within three (3) business days of your date of hire, or our employment
relationship with you may be terminated. 
 I have enclosed our standard Employee Confidentiality and Invention Assignment Agreement as a
condition of your employment. If you accept this offer, please return to me a signed copy of that agreement. 
 In accepting this offer, you
are representing to us that (a) you are not a party to any employment agreement or other contract or arrangement which prohibits your full-time employment with the Company, (b) you do not know of any conflict which would restrict your
employment with the Company and (c) you have not and will not bring with you to your employment with the Company any documents, records or other confidential information belonging to former employers. 







 Ashok Singhal 
 April 19,
1999 
 Page 2 
 To indicate your acceptance of
the Company’s offer, please sign and date this letter in the space provided below and return it to me. A duplicate original is enclosed for your records. This letter, along with the agreement relating to proprietary rights between you and the
Company, sets forth the terms of your employment with the Company and supersedes any prior representations or agreements, whether written or oral. This letter may not be modified or amended except by a written agreement, signed by an officer of the
Company and by you. 
 We look forward to working with you at 3 Pardata. 
  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	3 PARDATA, INC.
	
	/s/ ROBERT A. ROGERS
	Robert A. Rogers
	President


  

			
	 Enclosures:
	  	Duplicate Offer Letter
		  	Form of Employee Confidentiality and Invention Assignment Agreement

  

									
	ACCEPTED AND AGREED:	 		 	
			
	/s/ ASHOK SINGHAL	 		 	Dated: May 1, 1999
	Ashok Singhal
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-40943

Conference Calendar

 

WILBERT C. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT 

CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 9:97-CV-81

- - - - - - - - - -

June 17, 1998

Before DAVIS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Wilbert C. Johnson, Texas inmate #613845, appeals from the

judgment dismissing his civil rights complaint as frivolous. We

have carefully reviewed the record and the appellate arguments. 

The essence of Johnson’s complaint arises from the revocation of

probation, the issuance of parole, and the revocation of that

parole. Judgment in Johnson’s favor necessarily would call into

question the validity of those proceedings, and Johnson has not
No. 97-40943

-2-

demonstrated that the rulings from those proceedings have been

otherwise overturned. Therefore, his cause of action has yet to

arise. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994);

Jackson v. Vannoy, 49 F.3d 175, 177 (5th Cir. 1995). The

district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the

complaint as frivolous. See McCormick v. Stalder, 105 F.3d 1059,

1061 (5th Cir. 1997).

AFFIRMED.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff,

v.

Douglas Haig,

Defendant.

No. 18-105MJ

O R D E R

The Court having reviewed the Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to Comply

with Release Order (Doc. 7), 

IT IS ORDERED granting the Unopposed Motion (Doc. 7),

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED extending the deadline to comply with this Court’s

Order to remove weapons, ammunition, reloading and ammunition equipment, and firearms

from Defendant’s possession or house until Friday, February 9, 2018 at 5:00 pm.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other conditions of release imposed will remain

the same unless otherwise ordered by this Court.

The Court finds excludable delay under 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(7) from ____ to _____.

DATED this 7th day of February, 2018.

Case 2:18-mj-00105-MHB Document 8 Filed 02/07/18 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          22,839
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  227,584
<ALLOWANCES>                                     6,965
<INVENTORY>                                    155,818
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               446,147
<PP&E>                                         716,856<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                               (254,590)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,212,558
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          347,081
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           41,273
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (603,003)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,212,558
<SALES>                                      1,102,324
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,102,324
<CGS>                                          816,370
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  816,370
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               883,450<F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,784
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             116,599
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (737,689)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (28,289)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (709,400)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                       16,942
<NET-INCOME>                                 (726,342)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES AN IMPAIRMENT CHARGE OF $195,208 RELATED TO THE WRITE-OFF ON
CERTAIN IMPAIRED LONG-LIVED ASSETS. SEE (F2).
<F2>INCLUDES A CHARGE OF $17,600 RELATING TO THE WRITE-OFF OF ACQUIRED
IN-PROCESS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ACQUISITION OF
KALEX. THE WRITE-OFF RELATES TO ACQUIRED RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS THAT
DO NOT HAVE A FUTURE ALTERNATIVE USE. ALSO INCLUDES A CHARGE OF $468,389 RELATED
TO AN IMPAIRMENT LOSS FROM THE WRITE-OFF OF CERTAIN LONG-LIVED ASSETS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS NO. 121 "ACCOUNTING
FOR THE IMPAIRMENT OF LONG-LIVED ASSETS AND FOR LONG-LIVED ASSETS TO BE DISPOSED
OF." ALSO INCLUDES $110,070 RELATED TO A NON-CASH COMPENSATION EXPENSE CHARGE.
</FN>


</TABLE>
**Exhibit      32.0**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADDED BY**

**SECTION      906 OF THE **
**SARBANES-OXLEY      ACT OF 2002**

| 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of the                Company                as of and for the period covered by this                Report. |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/                Robert J. Stroh, Jr.                                                                    |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Robert                J. Stroh, Jr.                                                                        |
|   | Chairman,                Chief Executive Officer and Chief                Financial                Officer |
|   | February                12, 2008                                                                           |

----
##### 



Exhibit 32.1


STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

OF INDUS INTERNATIONAL, INC.


PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SS. 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Indus
International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K
for the period ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Gregory J. Dukat, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to my 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 operations of the Company.



| |                                          
| | -----------------------------------------
| | /s/ GREGORY J. DUKAT                     
| |                                          
| | Gregory J. Dukat                         
| | President and Chief Executive
    Officer

June 14, 2004
#### Casey *v.*Casey, executor.

No. 3158.

January 17, 1923.

Equitable petition. Before Judge Highsmith. Camden superior court. February 18, 1922.

*Bennet, Twitty & Reese,*for plaintiff in error.

*S. C. Townsend*and *Cowart & Vocelle,*contra.

Hill, J.

The exceptions to the judge’s rulings on the admissibility of certain evidence during the trial of the case, and to certain charges of the court to the jury, and omission to charge, show no error. The evidence, though conflicting, is sufficient to authorize the verdict, and the court did not err in refusing a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
#### David A. HENDERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 50499.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 8, 1995.

Emmett D. Queener, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Fernando Bermudez, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before BERREY, P.J., and ULRICH and ELLIS, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from the denial without evidentiary hearing of Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

John Lawrence Gopher, 

Defendant.

No. CR-18-50023-PHX-DJH

DETENTION ORDER 

 On March 2, 2018, Defendant appeared before this Court on a petition for 

revocation of supervised release. The issue of detention was submitted to the Court. The 

Court considered the petition and file in determining whether Defendant should be 

released on conditions set by the Court. 

 The Court finds that Defendant, having previously been convicted and placed on 

supervised release, and having appeared before the Court in connection with a petition to 

revoke his supervised release, has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence 

that he is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of the community if released 

pursuant to Rule 46(d), and Rule 32.1(a)(6), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and 18 

U.S.C. § 3143. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant be detained pending further 

proceedings. 

 Dated this 5th day of March, 2018. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge
#### Matthew Keith McDOWELL, Respondent, v. Laurie Holland McDOWELL, Appellant.

No. WD 40682.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Jan. 31, 1989.

*736James T. Buckley of Buckley and Mitchell, Sedalia, for appellant.

Roger J. Schuberj Sedalia, for respondent.

Before MANFORD, P.J., and TURNAGE and LOWENSTEIN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from an order of the trial court modifying a decree of dissolution so as to award child support to respondent, the custodial parent.

The order is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 101 (Thursday, May 23, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25870-25871]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13016]



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

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
[FEMA-1112-DR]


Illinois; Amendment to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the 
State of Illinois, (FEMA-1112-DR), dated May 6, 1996, and related 
determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 9, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pauline C. Campbell, Response and 
Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, 
DC 20472, (202) 646-3606.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster for the State 
of Illinois, is hereby amended to include the following areas among 
those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the 
catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of May 6, 1996:

    Madison and Monroe Counties for Individual Assistance, Public 
Assistance, and Hazard Mitigation.


[[Page 25871]]


(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.516, Disaster 
Assistance)
William C. Tidball,
Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate.
[FR Doc. 96-13016 Filed 5-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
**EXHIBIT
      32** **.2**









**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**




**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**




**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT BY**




**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**







**EXHIBIT
        32**
  **CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO**
  **18
        U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
  **AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT BY**
  **SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
    In
        connection with the Quarterly Diamond Ranch Foods, Ltd, on Form 10-QSB for
        the
        quarter ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
        Commission on the date hereof (the "REPORT"), the undersigned, William DeMarzo,
        Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company,
        certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of
        the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge and
        belief:
  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 result of operations of the Company.
 
 Date:
                  February 9, 2007
                
                By:
                  /s/ William DeMarzo
                ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                William
                  DeMarzo, Chief Financial Officer
     
  A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
        authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
        in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has
        been
        provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
        to the
        Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
        request.
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Joyce Steel Erection, Ltd., Appellant

No. 06

- 14

- 00064

- CV v. Gordon Ray Bonner, Appellee Appeal from the 202nd District Court of Bowie County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 11C0822

- 202 ). Opinion del ivered by Justice Carter,* Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Moseley
, participating. * Justice Carter, Sitting by Assignment.
As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find there was partial error in the judgment of the court below. Therefore, we modify paragraph 1(a) of the trial court’s judgment to reflect an award of actual damages to Gordon Ray Bonner in the amount o f $1,937,467.32. As modified, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. We further order that the appellant, Joyce Steel Erection, Ltd., shall pay eighty

- three percent of the costs of this appeal and that the appellee, Gordon Ray Bonner, shall pay seventeen percent of the costs of this appeal

.

RENDERED JUNE 17, 2015 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.

ELIAZAR BARRAZA, a.k.a. Eliazar Molina Barraza, a.k.a. Elizor Molina Barraza, a.k.a. Eliazar Barraza

- Molina, a.k.a. Eliazar Barraza Molina, a.k.a. Iliazar Barraza Molina,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 14

- 50489

D.C. No. 2:14

- cr

- 00084

- SVW

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted J anuary 16, 2018 **

Before: REINHARDT, TROTT, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Eliazar Barraza appeals from the district cour t’s judgment and challenges his

guilty

- plea conviction and 72

- month senten ce for being an illegal alien found in

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

JAN 19 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 14

- 50489

the United States following deportation , in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 . We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Barraza first contends that the district court should have granted his motion

to dismiss the indictment because California Health & Safety Code section s 11351

and 1137 7 (a)

— the statutes under which Barraza was convicted in 2008
, leading to

his initial remov al from the United States

— are not divisible. Our recent decisions

in United States v. Martinez

- Lopez , 864 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc), and

United States v. Murillo

-

Alvarado , 876 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2017), foreclose

Barraza’s contention that sectio n 11351 is indivisible

. Barraza does not contend

that his removal order was invalid even if section 11351 is divisible

, see 8 U.S.C.

§§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), (a)(2)(B)(i) ; therefore, we need not reach his remaining

contentions regarding the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss the

indictment

.

Barraza next contends that his sentence is substantively unreasonable. The

below

- Guidelines sentence is substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C.

§ 35 53(a ) sentenc ing factors and the totality of the circumstances, including

Barraza’s recent and extensive criminal history. See United States v. Valencia

Barragan , 608 F.3d 1103, 1108

- 09 (9th Cir. 2010).

In accordance with United States v. Rivera

- Sanchez , 222 F.3d 1 057, 1062

(9th Cir. 2000), we remand to the district court with the instruction that it delete3 14

- 50489

from the judgment the reference to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2).

AFFIRMED ; REMANDED to correct the judgment

.
## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
N O . A P - 76, 211

EX PA R TE TIM O TH Y SH A W N M A JO R S , A ppl i c ant

ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US CAUS E N O. 5 3 9 9 2 - 0 1 - E I N T HE 1 0 8 TH DI S TR I CT COURT

FROM POTTER CO UNTY

P er cur i am . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Crim i n al P ro ce dure, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habe as cor

pus. Ex pa rte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant wa s convicted of possession of a fi re ar m b y a felon and sente nced to seventy -eig ht y ear s’ imprisonment. The Seventh Court of Appea ls affirme d his conviction. Applicant contends that his appellate counsel re ndere d ineffe ctive assistance beca

use counsel failed to a dvise him of his rig ht to file petition for discre tionary revie w pro se.2

Ap pe lla te c ou ns e l fi le d a n a ff ida vit wi th the tr ia l c ou rt a c kn ow le dg ing that he fa ile d to a dv ise Applicant of his rig ht to file a pro se petition for discre tionary revie w and the time limits for doing
so . Th e Sta te a lso fi le d a n a ns we r a c kn ow le dg ing c ou ns e l’ s f a ilu re to i nf

or m A pp lic a nt o f h is r ig hts
conce rning the filing of

a pro se petition for discretionary revie w. We find, theref ore, tha t Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of

-time petition for di scre tionary revie w of the judg ment of the Se ve nth

Court of Ap pe a ls i n Ca

us e No
. 07 -0 7- 00 25 9- CR that a ff ir me d his c on vic tio n in

Ca se No. 53992-01-E from the 108th J udicial District Court o f P otter County
. Ex parte W

ilson , 956 S.W. 2d 25 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 97 ). Ap pli c a nt sh a ll fi le his pe tit ion fo r dis c re tio na ry re vie w w ith the Se ve nth Court

of Ap pe a ls w ith in 3 0 d a y s o f t he da te on

wh ic h th is C ou rt ’s ma nd a te iss ue s.

Deliver ed: September

16, 2009 Do no t pu bli sh