alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.1





 Exhibit 10.1 
  





 
 c/o Intertrust Services, Ltd. 

190 Elgin Avenue 
 George Town 

Cayman Islands 
 August 14,
2019 
 David T. Mitchell 
 Chairman of the Board of Directors

  

	Re:	 Amendment to Restricted Share Unit Awards 



Dear Tom, 
 On August 18, 2016, you were granted a
restricted share unit award covering 61,758 ordinary shares (“Shares”) of Fabrinet, a company formed under the laws of the Cayman Islands (“Fabrinet” or the “Company”), which is referred to herein as your 2016 RSU
Award. On August 24, 2017, you were granted a restricted share unit award covering 69,885 Shares of Fabrinet, which is referred to herein as your 2017 RSU Award. Your 2016 RSU Award and your 2017 RSU Award were both granted under
Fabrinet’s 2010 Performance Incentive Plan (the “Plan”) and restricted share unit award agreement thereunder (the “RSU Agreements”). 

Pursuant to this letter agreement (the “Letter”), each of the RSU Agreements for your 2016 RSU Award and your 2017 RSU Award is hereby amended to
provide that, notwithstanding Section 2 of the applicable RSU Agreement specifying the settlement of your 2016 RSU Award and your 2017 RSU Award in whole Shares, upon any vesting and settlement of your 2016 RSU Award and your 2017 RSU Award on
or after the date hereof, 42% of the Shares otherwise issuable upon such vesting (rounded to the nearest whole Share) automatically will be settled in the form of cash, with the amount of cash payable for a Share equal to the last sales price in
regular trading for a Share as furnished by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority through the New York Stock Exchange on the date of vesting (or if such date is not a trading day with respect to the New York Stock Exchange, then the most
recent trading day, as applicable). 
 Except as modified by this Letter, your RSU Agreements remain in full force and effect. This Letter, together with
the RSU Agreements (to the extent not amended hereby), the Plan and that certain Separation Agreement and Release dated July 16, 2018, entered into between you and the Company, represent the entire agreement between you and the Company and will
supersede any and all previous contracts, agreements or understandings between you and the Company with respect to your 2016 RSU Award and your 2017 RSU Award. 

Please sign and return one copy of Letter to Colin Campbell, General Counsel, to acknowledge and agree to the amendment of your RSU Agreements pursuant to
this Letter. This Letter will be governed by the laws of the State of California, with the exception of its conflict of laws provision. 
 Sincerely, 

/s/ Frank
Levinson                                        
                             

Frank Levinson, Chairman of the Compensation Committee 
 (duly
authorized on behalf of the Board of Directors of Fabrinet) 
 ACKNOWLEDGED AND AGREED: 

 

					
	/s/ David T.
Mitchell                                    	  	Date: August 14, 2019	  	

 David T. Mitchell
Order entered November 16, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00039-CV

TRACEY B. THOMPSON, Appellant

V.

MARTIN F. GAINES, Appellee

On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-09781

ORDER

After appellant questioned the accuracy of the reporter’s record, we ordered 

the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine if the record accurately disclosed 

what occurred in the trial court. The trial court held the hearing on September 23, 

2022, and, as recited in an order signed November 14, 2022, found that no 

evidence was presented regarding any inaccuracies or omissions. Accordingly, the 

appeal shall proceed on the reporter’s record as filed May 6, 2022.
With the issue regarding the reporter’s record now addressed, we ORDER 

appellant to file her brief on the merits no later than December 15, 2022.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III

JUSTICE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 06-cr-106-01-PB

Craig Marcotte

O R D E R

Defendant appeared for a bail revocation hearing pursuant to

18 U.S.C. § 3148. Defendant acknowledged that he engaged in

conduct which constitutes a bail violation but did not admit to

the specifics of the charges. Given the nature of the failed

opportunity to comply with conditions, I find that the defendant

is unlikely to abide by any condition or combination of

conditions. The conditions of release are revoked.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendant be detained

pending trial. 

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney

General or his designated representative for confinement in a

corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from

persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody

pending appeal. The defendant shall be afforded a reasonable

opportunity for private consultation with defense counsel. On

order of a court of the United States or on request of an

Case 1:06-cr-00106-PB Document 19 Filed 01/03/07 Page 1 of 2
2

attorney for the government, the person in charge of the

corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to the United

States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection

with a court proceeding. 

SO ORDERED.

___________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: January 3, 2007 

cc: Helen W. Fitzgibbon, Esq.

 Tony F. Soltani, Esq.

 U.S. Marshal

 U.S. Probation

Case 1:06-cr-00106-PB Document 19 Filed 01/03/07 Page 2 of 2
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CEO AND CFO PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002**

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Linens ‘n Things,Inc. for the quarterly period ended March31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), Robert J. DiNicola, as Chief Executive Officer of Linens‘n Things, Inc., and Francis M. Rowan, asChief Financial Officer, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that, to the best of his knowledge:

(1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Linens‘n Things, Inc.
| /s/ Robert J. DiNicola |                      |
|------------------------|---------------------------|
| **Name:**              | Robert J. DiNicola        |
| **Title:**             | Chairman and Chief        |
|                   | Executive Officer         |
| **Date:**              | May 15, 2007              |
| ** **             |                      |
| ** **             |                      |
| /s/ Francis M.  Rowan  |                      |
| **Name:**              | Francis M. Rowan          |
| **Title:**             | Senior Vice President and |
|                   | Chief Financial Officer   |
| **Date:**              | May 15, 2007              |
|                        |                           |  |

 

----
H. R. 1456

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two

An Act

To expand the boundary of the Booker T. Washington National Monument, and

for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Booker T. Washington National

Monument Boundary Adjustment Act of 2002’’.

SEC. 2. BOUNDARY OF BOOKER T. WASHINGTON NATIONAL MONUMENT EXPANDED.

The Act entitled ‘‘An Act to provide for the establishment

of the Booker T. Washington National Monument’’, approved April

2, 1956 (16 U.S.C. 450ll et seq.), is amended by adding at the

end the following new section:

‘‘SEC. 5. ADDITIONAL LANDS.

‘‘(a) LANDS ADDED TO MONUMENT.—The boundary of the Booker

T. Washington National Monument is modified to include the

approximately 15 acres, as generally depicted on the map entitled

‘Boundary Map, Booker T. Washington National Monument,

Franklin County, Virginia’, numbered BOWA 404/80,024, and dated

February 2001. The map shall be on file and available for inspection

in the appropriate offices of the National Park Service, Department

of the Interior.

‘‘(b) ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL LANDS.—The Secretary of the

Interior is authorized to acquire from willing owners the land

or interests in land described in subsection (a) by donation, purchase

with donated or appropriated funds, or exchange.

‘‘(c) ADMINISTRATION OF ADDITIONAL LANDS.—Lands added to

the Booker T. Washington National Monument by subsection (a)

shall be administered by the Secretary of the Interior as part
H. R. 1456—2

of the monument in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
# Memorandum for the Secretary of State

# Emergency Fund Drawdown to Assist Zimbabwean Refugees in South Africa, Botswana, Mozambique, and Zambia

By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including sections 2 and 4(a)(1) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 1962 (the “Act”), as amended (22 U.S.C. 2601 and 2603) and section 301 of title 3, United States Code:

(1) I hereby determine, pursuant to 2(c)(1) of the Act, that it is important to the national interest to furnish assistance under the Act, in an amount not to exceed $2.5 million from the United States Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund, for the purpose of meeting unexpected and urgent refugee and migration needs, including by contributions to international, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations and payment of administrative expenses of the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration of the Department of State, related to humanitarian needs of Zimbabwean refugees and asylum seekers; and

(2) the functions of the President in relation to this memorandum under section   2(d) of the Act, and of establishing terms and conditions under section 2(c)(1) of the Act, are assigned to you, and you may further assign such functions to any of your subordinates, consistent with applicable law.

                        You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the                         *Federal Register*.                    

[FR Doc. E8-21964

Billing code 4710-10-P
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 05-cr-284-01-SM

Robert Cennami

O R D E R

Defendant Cennami’s motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 11). Trial has been rescheduled for the January 

2007 trial period. Defendant Cennami shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights

not later than September 26, 2006. On the filing of such waiver, his

continuance shall be effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: December 18, 2006 at 4:30 p.m.

Jury Selection: January 9, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:05-cr-00284-PB Document 12 Filed 09/18/06 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

September 18, 2006

cc: Bjorn Lange, Esq.

Clyde R.W. Garrigan, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:05-cr-00284-PB Document 12 Filed 09/18/06 Page 2 of 2
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

RASHID EL MALIK, 

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs, 

Respondent-Appellee

______________________

2023-1684

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 22-5317, Judge Coral Wong 

Pietsch. 

______________________

O R D E R

The appellant having failed to pay the docketing fee 

required by Federal Circuit Rule 52(a)(1) within the time 

permitted by the rules, it is 

ORDERED that the notice of appeal be, and the same 

hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in 

Case: 23-1684 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 05/01/2023
2 EL MALIK V. MCDONOUGH 

accordance with the rules. 

FOR THE COURT

May 1, 2023

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner 

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: May 1, 2023

Case: 23-1684 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 05/01/2023
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AMY JACOBY,

Defendant.

8:23CR126

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial (Filing No. 90). 

The parties have reached a tentative agreement to resolve this matter short of trial. For good cause 

shown, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial (Filing No. 90) is granted 

as follows:

1. The jury trial now set for September 3, 2024, is continued to October 28, 2024.

2. In accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), the Court finds that the ends of 

justice will be served by granting this continuance and outweigh the interests of the 

public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Any additional time arising as a result 

of the granting of this motion, that is, the time between today’s date and October 

28, 2024, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the 

requirement of the Speedy Trial Act. Failure to grant a continuance would deny 

counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account 

the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B)(iv).

3. No further continuances will be granted barring exceptional circumstances.

Dated this 27th day of August 2024.

BY THE COURT:

Robert F. Rossiter, Jr.

Chief United States District Judge

8:23-cr-00126-RFR-MDN Doc # 91 Filed: 08/27/24 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 147
1. Gold held ‘‘under earmark’’ at Federal Reserve Banks for foreign and international

accounts is not included in the gold stock of the United States; see table 3.13, line 3. Gold

stock is valued at $42.22 per fine troy ounce.

2. Special drawing rights (SDRs) are valued according to a technique adopted by the

International Monetary Fund (IMF) in July 1974. Values are based on a weighted average of

exchange rates for the currencies of member countries. From July 1974 through December

1980, sixteen currencies were used; since January 1981, five currencies have been used. U.S.

SDR holdings and reserve positions in the IMF also have been valued on this basis since July

1974.

3. Includes allocations of SDRs by the International Monetary Fund on Jan. 1 of the year

indicated, as follows: 1970—$867 million; 1971—$717 million; 1972—$710 million; 1979—

$1,139 million; 1980—$1,152 million; 1981—$1,093 million; plus net transactions in SDRs.

4. Valued at current market exchange rates.

3.13 FOREIGN OFFICIAL ASSETS HELD AT FEDERAL RESERVE BANKS1

Millions of dollars, end of period

Asset 1996 1997 1998

1999

May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.p

1 Deposits .............................. 167 457 167 157 409 257 166 243 189 501 71

Held in custody

2 U.S. Treasury securities2 ................. 638,049 620,885 607,574 606,579 611,372 619,004 626,669 634,086 621,351 629,430 632,482

3 Earmarked gold3 ........................ 11,197 10,763 10,343 10,340 10,329 10,329 10,271 10,155 10,114 10,015 9,933

1. Excludes deposits and U.S. Treasury securities held for international and regional

organizations.

2. Marketable U.S. Treasury bills, notes, and bonds and nonmarketable U.S. Treasury

securities, in each case measured at face (not market) value.

3. Held in foreign and international accounts and valued at $42.22 per fine troy ounce; not

included in the gold stock of the United States.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Joseph Vaillancourt

a/k/a Bryan Bernard

v. Civil No. 06-cv-438-JD

Bernie Campbell, et al

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated May 3, 2007, no objection having been filed for the reasons stated

therein. The motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. # 38) is denied.

SO ORDERED.

June 11, 2007 /s/Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr. 

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

cc: Joseph Vaillancourt, pro se

Nancy Smith, Esq.

Case 1:06-cv-00438-JD Document 202 Filed 06/11/07 Page 1 of 1
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Julietta CASTANEDA-CAMPOS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-30176.

D.C. No. CR-01-05639-1-FDB.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 13, 2003.*

Decided Jan. 21, 2003.

Before BEEZER, KLEINFELD, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

Julietta Castaneda-Campos appeals the sentence imposed following her guilty plea to three counts of distribution of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for plain error a sentencing court’s decision not to hold an evidentiary hearing when a defendant has not requested one. *United States v. Berry,*258 F.3d 971, 976 (9th Cir.2001). We affirm.

The district court did not err by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine if Castaneda-Campos qualified for the safety-valve provision because she conceded at the sentencing hearing that her two prior convictions disqualified her. *See*U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2(a)(l); *United States v. Washman,*128 F.3d 1305, 1307-08 (9th Cir.1997).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the *683courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. 06-cr-148- 01-JD

Terri Ann Thurlow

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no.

13) filed by defendant is granted.

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

days. The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting

a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. § 3131(h)(8)(B)(iv), for the

reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

 /s/Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: January 16, 2007

cc: Joseph Caulfield, Esq.

William E. Morse, AUSA

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:06-cr-00148-JD Document 14 Filed 01/16/07 Page 1 of 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

REYNALDO LAMPLEY,

Defendant.

8:23CR121

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the motion of Assistant Federal Public Defender Julie B. 

Hansen and the Office of the Federal Public Defender to withdraw as counsel for the defendant, 

Reynaldo Lampley. (Filing No. 16). Julie B. Hansen represents that the Office of the Federal Public 

Defender has a conflict of interest in this matter. Julie B. Hansen and the Office of the Federal 

Public Defender’s motion to withdraw (Filing No. 16) was granted (Filing No. 17). 

Stuart J. Dornan, 1403 Farnam Street, Suite 232, Omaha, NE 68102, (402) 884-7044, is 

appointed to represent Reynaldo Lampley for the balance of these proceedings pursuant to the 

Criminal Justice Act. Julie B. Hansen shall forthwith provide Stuart J. Dornan with the discovery 

materials provided the defendant by the government and such other materials obtained by Julie B. 

Hansen which are material to Reynaldo Lampley’s defense. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated this 12th day of July, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Michael D. Nelson

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-cr-00121-RFR-MDN Doc # 18 Filed: 07/12/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 32
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

H & F Aviation, Inc. and

Joseph L. Frisolone

v. Case No. 06-cv-135-SM

Keyson Enterprises, Inc.,

Keyson Airways Corporation,

William Krivsky, Individually,

and Holly Frenzel, Individually

ORDER

Re: Document No. 49, Motion to Enforce Settlement, filed by

H & F Aviation, Inc., et al. 

Ruling: A trial court may not either summarily enforce or

summarily refuse to enforce a settlement agreement, particularly if

material facts are in dispute as to the validity or terms of the

agreement. Here, defendants seem to suggest a dispute as to the

appropriate remedy under the preliminary settlement agreement’s

terms in the event of a failure to obtain timely commercial

financing to support part of the agreement, as has apparently

occurred. An evidentiary hearing might be necessary, as the

referenced terms may prove ambiguous, and a hearing with respect to

the "preliminary" agreement’s enforceability would seem

unavoidable. See generally, Bandera v. City of Quincy, 344 F.3d 47

(1st. Cir. 2003). The pending motion to substitute party defendant

(doc. no. 51) is granted. The clerk will schedule a hearing on the

motion to enforce settlement as the court’s docket allows, after 30

days from the date of this order. Counsel are encouraged to

resolve the matter in the interests of their respective clients, 

particularly given the difficulties occasioned by Mr. Krivsky's

passing. 

 

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief District Judge

Date: February 2, 2007

cc: All Counsel of Record

Case 1:06-cv-00135-SM Document 63 Filed 02/02/07 Page 1 of 1
* Local rule 47.5 provides: “The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession.” Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 95-30636 Summary Calendar

_____________________ DON TRUEBLOOD, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; THOMAS GRACE, Individually and in his official capacity as an employee/agent of the USA/IRS; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants-Appellees.

_______________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for

the Western District of Louisiana

(CV-94-2315)

_______________________________________________________ December 15, 1995 Before REAVLEY, DUHÉ AND WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Don Trueblood appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his complaint pursuant to the Anti-Injunction Act, 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a). He argues that the district court should have construed his claim under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706; applied a judicially-created exception to2

the Anti-Injunction Act; determined that the complaint was subject to a statutory exemption under 26 U.S.C. § 6213; and construed portions of his complaint as alleging civil rights claims. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for essentially the reasons given by the district court. Trueblood v. United States , No. CV-94-2315 (W.D. La. May 26, 1995). AFFIRMED.