alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4.02_09302014






Exhibit 4.02


JOINDER AGREEMENT
October 23, 2014


Reference is hereby made to that certain Transfer Restriction Agreement, dated March 25, 2014 (the “Transfer Restriction Agreement”), among Google Inc., a Delaware corporation, Sergey Brin and his Permitted Entities.  Unless otherwise defined herein, terms defined in the Transfer Restriction Agreement and used herein shall have the meanings given to them in the Transfer Restriction Agreement.


Each of the undersigned parties hereby agrees that it is, and shall be deemed to be for all purposes, a Permitted Entity, a Holder and a member of the Holder Group under the Transfer Restriction Agreement, and bound by all of the terms and conditions of the Transfer Restriction Agreement, effective March 25, 2014, as if it were an original signatory thereto.


This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the laws of the State of Delaware applicable to contracts executed in and to be performed entirely within such State, without regard to the conflict of laws principles thereof which would result in the application of the laws of any other jurisdiction.


This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts (including by facsimile or electronic signature and by electronic mail or PDF), each of which when executed shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the same agreement.


*   *   *   *   *


(Signature Page Follows)















IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Permitted Entities named below have executed this Agreement as of the date set forth above and agree to be bound by the terms of this Agreement applicable to Permitted Entities as Holders and members of the Holder Group.
	
				
	Google Inc.

	 

	/s/ Kent Walker
	 

	Name:
	 
	Kent Walker

	Title:
	 
	Senior Vice President and General Counsel




	
	
	Sergey Brin



	 

	/s/ Sergey Brin










	
			
	

J.P. Morgan Trust Company of Delaware as Trustee


MDC Trust I



	 

	/s/ Danielle M. Kiss

	Name:
	 
	Danielle M. Kiss

	Title:
	 
	Authorized Signatory

	 
	 
	 

	

J.P. Morgan Trust Company of Delaware as Trustee


MDC Trust II



	 

	/s/ Danielle M. Kiss

	Name:
	 
	Danielle M. Kiss

	Title:
	 
	Authorized Signatory

	 
	 
	 















	
			
	

J.P. Morgan Trust Company of Delaware as Trustee


MDC Trust III



	/s/ Danielle M. Kiss

	Name:
	 
	Danielle M. Kiss

	Title:
	 
	Authorized Signatory
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 435 

Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall on December 2, 2008, for ceremonies and activities held in connection with the opening of the Capitol 

Visitor Center to the public. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 26, 2008 

Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania (for himself and Mr. EHLERS) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 

House Administration 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Authorizing the use of Emancipation Hall on December 2, 

2008, for ceremonies and activities held in connection 

with the opening of the Capitol Visitor Center to the 

public. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That Emancipation Hall may be used on De3 cember 2, 2008, for ceremonies and activities held in con4 nection with the opening of the Capitol Visitor Center to 

5 the public. Physical preparations for such ceremonies and 

6 activities shall be carried out in accordance with such con7 ditions as the Architect of the Capitol may prescribe. 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
Exhibit 32

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each
of the undersigned officers of Cardium Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation, does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008 of Cardium
Therapeutics, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Cardium Therapeutics, Inc.



|                  |  |  |  |                                                 
|----------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 9, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Christopher J. Reinhard                     
|                  |  |  |  | Christopher J. Reinhard, Chief Executive Officer
|                  |  | 
|Date: May 9, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Dennis M. Mulroy                            
|                  |  |  |  | Dennis M. Mulroy, Chief Financial Officer       

The foregoing certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00191

- CR

Cecil Charles Gillis

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§ From Criminal District Court No. 4

o f Tarrant County (1139398W )

July 3 , 2014

P er C uriam

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the ap peal is dism issed

.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

PER CURIAM
FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T OCT 27, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLISH]
IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 6- 13 75 9 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D. C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 60 55 3- CV-CM A BKCY No . 03 -2 79 76 BKC-R B InRe: PICC ADILLY CAFETERIAS, INC., Debt or .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT O F REVENUE, Pla in ti ff-Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us PICC ADILLY CAFETERIAS, INC., D efen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Oc to ber 2 7, 2 00 8) ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREM E COURT OF THE UNITED STAT ESBefo re BARKETT an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s, an d TRAGER, Dis tri ct * Ju dg e. PER CURI AM: Thi s ca se co m es to us on rem an d fr om th e Supr em e Co urt o f th e Uni te d St at es , see Flo rid a Dep t. o f Rev en ue v. Pi ccad il ly Cafet eri as , Inc ., – U.S. –, 1 28 S.Ct . 23 26 (20 08 ), rev ers in g o ur de ci si on in In r e Pi ccad il ly Cafet eri as , Inc ., 48 4 F.3 d 1 29 9 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 7) . Accor di ng ly, we REVERSE an d REMAND to th e Dis tri ctCo urt wi th in st ru ct io ns to rev ers e an d re m an d t o t he Ban krup tc y Co urt fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs co ns is te ntwith t he Supr em e Co urt’s o pi ni on .

Honora ble David G. T rag er, United States District J udg e for the Easter

n District of Ne w * York, sitting by

desig nation. 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6222

KEITH WILLIAM DEBLASIO, Petitioner - Appellant, versus COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-97-1872-AM) Submitted: May 29, 1998 Decided: June 22, 1998 Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith William DeBlasio, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Keith William DeBlasio seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254(West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. DeBlasio v. Virginia , No. CA-97- 1872-AM (E.D. Va. Jan. 13, 1998). We also deny DeBlasio’s motions for appointment of counsel and to supplement the record on appeal.We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
ARG - 3.31.14 - 10-K EX. 10.11






Exhibit 10.11


AIRGAS, INC.
2003 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN




Amendment No. 3
Effective January 29, 2013




RESOLVED, that Section 6(d) of the Amended and Restated 2003 Employee Stock Purchase Plan be and it hereby is amended to read in its entirety as follows:
"(d) Each option shall provide that shares purchased pursuant to the Plan with amounts withheld from Compensation otherwise payable on or after April 1, 2012, may not be sold or otherwise transferred during the "Restricted Period" applicable to them, except as hereafter provided.  The Restricted Period is the period beginning on the Enrollment Date as of which the shares were purchased and ending at the close of business on the last day of employment with Airgas, Inc. and its affiliates, or at the close of business one year after that Enrollment Date, whichever day is earlier.  The restriction applicable to shares purchased as of a particular Enrollment Date shall lapse, and shall not be restored, if the closing price of a share of the Common Stock on the New York Stock Exchange for five consecutive Trading Days during the Restricted Period is less than the purchase price for such shares determined pursuant to the Plan."










AIRGAS, INC.




By:


/S/    PETER McCAUSLAND
Peter McCausland
Its Executive Chairman 
Date: January 29, 2013.
[No. 44337-2-I.

Division One.

April 3, 2000.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. M.M., *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 99-8-00143-7, Michael J. Trickey, J., entered March 9, 1999. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
[Cite as R.C. v. C.S. , 2018-Ohio-308.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

R.C., :

Plaintiff-Appellee, :

v. : No. 17AP-152 (C.P.C. No. 14JU 7010) C.S., : (REGULAR CALENDAR) Defendant-Appellant. :

R.C., :

Plaintiff-Appellee, :

v. : No. 17AP-153 (C.P.C. No. 14JU 7010) C.S., : (REGULAR CALENDAR) Defendant-Appellee, :

(Minor Child, K.M.C., :

Appellant). :

M E M O R A N D U M D E C I S I O N

Rendered on January 25, 2018

Roger Warner, for appellees R.C. and G.C.

Steven E. Hillman, for appellant/mother C.S.

Erik L. Smith , for minor child K.M.C.

Christopher E. Heckert , Guardian ad Litem.

ON APPLICATIONS FOR RECONSIDERATIONNos. 17AP-152 and 17AP-153 2

TYACK, J. {¶ 1} Counsel for C.S., the mother of teenager K.M.C., has filed an application for reconsideration of our decision affirming the trial court's granting of limited visitation for K.M.C.'s paternal grandparents. An attorney purporting to be counsel for K.M.C. to some degree has also participated in the filing of a "separate" application for reconsideration on

behalf of the child. {¶ 2} Both counsel repeatedly assert that the decision about whether or not the paternal grandparents have any access to the child is totally up to the mother. We do not see that as being so. Obviously, if the paternal grandparents and the mother were getting along there would be no need for a court action. The fact that a system to allow grandparents to have limited access to a youn g person when a parent objects is proof that a parent's preference does not end consideration of the issue. {¶ 3} The applications for reconsideration do not raise issues which were not carefully considered when we drafted and released our decision. The applications merely assert at length a belief that we reached the wrong result. We do not believe that either the trial court or this appellate court reached the wrong result. {¶ 4} Both applications for reconsideration are denied. Applications for reconsideration denied. BROWN, P.J., and LUPER SCHUSTER, J., concur.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Wayne M. Fortun, Chief Executive Officer of Hutchinson TechnologyIncorporated, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of HutchinsonTechnology Incorporated;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
     c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the designor operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and
     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
Date: August 9, 2004
/s/ Wayne M. FortunWayne M. Fortun
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 81 (Tuesday, May 16, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H4966]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

 SIMPLE ARITHMETIC: TAX BREAKS FOR THE WEALTHY PROVIDED BY BUDGET CUTS

  (Mr. VOLKMER asked and was given permission to address the House for 
1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, and people back in the Ninth District, 
those who I talked to while I was out there, it is flim-flam time. You 
heard the Republicans on the other side say they are not cutting 
Medicare. CBO says they are cutting Medicare. They say the increase 
they give is far below the level that is estimated that is needed to 
maintain the current level of Medicare benefits required under current 
law. They say ``Yes, we are increasing it,'' but what about all the 
other people, for current beneficiaries, they say, ``What about all the 
other people that are coming?''
  Mr. Speaker, if you take the tax break, the big tax break out of the 
budget, out of their budget, there is no need to cut Medicare one 
penny. There is no need to cut student loans, there is no need to cut 
agriculture and veterans' benefits, there is no need to do those 
things. They are doing it in order to give tax breaks to the wealthy.
  It is very simple arithmetic. We had a gentleman there talk about 
classrooms. Yes, do the arithmetic. Take the tax break for the wealthy 
out of the budget and see what that equals. That equals more than the 
Medicare cuts for the elderly and the agriculture cuts and the student 
loan cuts.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 77 (Wednesday, May 10, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H4788]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan] is recognized for 5 minutes.

  [Mr. DORNAN addressed the House. His remarks will appear hereafter in 
the Extensions of Remarks.]

                          ____________________
```
* 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 5TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 25, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-31082 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus PATRICK A. WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:05-CR-30013-1

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The attorney appointed to represent Patrick A. Wright has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Wright filed a response in which he alleges that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to fairly evaluate the merits of this issue. Therefore, it is not reviewable on direct appeal. See United States v. Higdon , 832 F.2d 312, 313-14 (5th Cir. 1987).No. 05-31082 -2- Our independent review of counsel’s brief, Wright’s response, and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH C IR . R. 42.2.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 467 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 467

       To allow consumers to unlock mobile wireless devices for 
                       interoperability purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 5, 2013

   Mr. Wyden introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To allow consumers to unlock mobile wireless devices for 
                       interoperability 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 ``Wireless Device Independence Act of 
2013''.

SEC. 2. ALLOWING CONSUMERS TO UNLOCK CELL PHONES.

    (a) In General.--Section 1201(a)(1)(B) of title 17, United States 
Code, is amended by striking ``not apply to persons'' and inserting the 
following: ``not apply to--
                            ``(i) a user of a computer program, in the 
                        form of firmware or software, that enables a 
                        wireless telephone handset, or other wireless 
                        device that can connect to the Internet, 
                        originally acquired from the operator of a 
                        wireless telecommunications network or retailer 
                        to connect to a different wireless 
                        telecommunications network if--
                                    ``(I) the user legally owns a copy 
                                of the computer program;
                                    ``(II) the use of the computer 
                                program by the user is solely for the 
                                purpose of connecting to such wireless 
                                telecommunications network; and
                                    ``(III) the access to such wireless 
                                telecommunications network is 
                                authorized by the operator of the 
                                network; or
                            ``(ii) persons''.
    (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 1201(a)(1) of title 17, United 
States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (C), by striking ``subparagraph (B)'' 
        and inserting ``subparagraph (B)(ii)''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (E), by striking ``Neither the 
        exception'' and inserting ``Neither of the exceptions''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendments made by this Act shall take effect as if enacted on 
January 26, 2013.
                                 <all>
```