alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.9

September 16, 1996



It gives me great pleasure to confirm our offer of employment for you to join
Lexar Microsystems, Inc. ("Lexar"), in the same position in which you are
presently employed with Cirrus Logic, Inc., reporting to your same supervisor.
Your bi-weekly salary will be the same as in your current position.  Paydays are
on Fridays for the previous two calendar weeks of work.  As a Lexar employee,
you will be eligible to participate in all current employee benefit and
incentive programs as described below.  In consideration for this offer of
employment, you agree to complete and return the necessary documentation in
order to complete your personnel file with Lexar.

I.   Vacation

Your vacation benefits, including your rate of vacation accrual, will be
identical to those you enjoyed with Cirrus Logic, with your date of seniority,
for purposes of vacation entitlement, dating from your commencement of
employment with the Solid-State Storage Business Unit.

II.  Medical and Miscellaneous

Medical and dental benefits will initially be covered under COBRA as an
extension of your Cirrus Logic benefit plans.  Thereafter, Lexar will attempt to
implement comparable medical and dental benefit plans, in addition to long-term
disability, life, and ad&d insurance plans for all employees.

III. Savings Plans and Profit Sharing

Lexar intends to immediately establish a 401(k) plan in which you will be
permitted to participate.  Further, if you wish, Lexar will seek to arrange for
a roll-over of your current 401(k) plan into the Lexar plan.  In addition, you
will be eligible for profit sharing upon completion of one full year of service.

This offer letter, the "Employment Agreement" and "Employee Nondisclosure and
Invention Assignment Agreement" constitute the entire and exclusive agreement
between Lexar and you concerning your terms and conditions of employment and
employee relationship with Lexar.
<PAGE>

September 16, 1996
Page 2


This offer will remain open until 5:00 p.m., September 19, 1996.  We look
forward to your acceptance of our offer and having you join the Lexar
Microsystems Team.  If you have any questions, please feel free to call me.

Sincerely,

   /s/ Michael A. Liccardo
-----------------------------

I accept the terms of this offer and will report to work on ___________________

   /s/ Petro Estakhri                                           9/19/96
-----------------------------                          ------------------------

Name                                                   Date
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2231

To reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant 

program through June 30, 2004, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 25, 2004

Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself and Mr. BAUCUS) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed 

A BILL

To reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

block grant program through June 30, 2004, and for 

other purposes.

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 ‘‘Welfare Reform Exten5 sion Act of 2004’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF THE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR 

7 NEEDY FAMILIES BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM 

8 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2004. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Activities authorized by part A of 

10 title IV of the Social Security Act, and by sections 510, 
2

•S 2231 CPS 

1 1108(b), and 1925 of such Act, shall continue through 

2 June 30, 2004, in the manner authorized for fiscal year 

3 2002, notwithstanding section 1902(e)(1)(A) of such Act, 

4 and out of any money in the Treasury of the United States 

5 not otherwise appropriated, there are hereby appropriated 

6 such sums as may be necessary for such purpose. Grants 

7 and payments may be made pursuant to this authority 

8 through the third quarter of fiscal year 2004 at the level 

9 provided for such activities through the third quarter of 

10 fiscal year 2002. 

11 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 

12 403(a)(3)(H)(ii) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

13 603(a)(3)(H)(ii)) is amended by striking ‘‘March 31’’ and 

14 inserting ‘‘June 30’’. 

15 SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF THE NATIONAL RANDOM SAMPLE 

16 STUDY OF CHILD WELFARE AND CHILD WEL17 FARE WAIVER AUTHORITY THROUGH JUNE 

18 30, 2004. 

19 Activities authorized by sections 429A and 1130(a) 

20 of the Social Security Act shall continue through June 30, 

21 2004, in the manner authorized for fiscal year 2002, and 

22 out of any money in the Treasury of the United States 

23 not otherwise appropriated, there are hereby appropriated 

24 such sums as may be necessary for such purpose. Grants 

25 and payments may be made pursuant to this authority 
3

•S 2231 CPS 

1 through the third quarter of fiscal year 2004 at the level 

2 provided for such activities through the third quarter of 

3 fiscal year 2002.

Æ
#### In the Matter of Hilary A. Best, Petitioner, v State of New York et al., Respondents.

[787 NYS2d 659]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of prohibition, inter alia, to prohibit the respondents from applying article 6-C of the *559Correction Law to the petitioner. Motion by the petitioner for leave to prosecute the proceeding as a poor person and to enjoin the respondents from applying article 6-C of the Correction Law to him pending hearing and determination of the proceeding.

Ordered that the branch of the motion which is for leave to prosecute the proceeding as a poor person is granted only to the extent that the filing fee is waived and that branch of the motion is otherwise denied; and it is further,

Ordered that the motion is otherwise denied as academic; and it is further,

Adjudged that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

“Because of its extraordinary nature, prohibition is available only where there is a clear legal right, and then only when a court—in cases where judicial authority is challenged—acts or threatens to act either without jurisdiction or in excess of its authorized powers” *(Matter of Holtzman v Goldman,*71 NY2d 564, 569 [1988]; *see Matter of Rush v Mordue,*68 NY2d 348, 352 [1986]). The petitioner has failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief sought (see *Matter of Williams v Zambelli,*267 AD2d 243 [1999]; *Matter of Valle v Moskowitz,*186 AD2d 572 [1992]). Ritter, J.P., Krausman, Mastro and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE
OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

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

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Synthetic Biologics, Inc. (the “Registrant”)
hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:



|(1) | the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A (Amendment No. 1) of the Registrant for the quarter ended September 30, 2020 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: November 12, 2020 |    
|----------------------- | ---
|                        | By:
|                        |    
|                        |    
|                        |
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Trisha McPherson, Appellant.

[789 NYS2d 244]

Appeal by the defendant, by permission, from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D’Emic, J.), dated January 12, 2004, which denied, without a hearing, her motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate a judgment of conviction of the same court rendered June 26, 2001, convicting her of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, after a nonjury trial, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the order is affirmed.

The Supreme Court erred in concluding that the defendant’s motion to vacate her conviction was procedurally barred, since her claim of ineffective assistance of counsel involves matter dehors the record *(see*CPL 440.10). Nevertheless, the defendant failed to establish, prima facie, that she was deprived of meaningful representation *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708 [1998]; *People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137 [1981]). Thus, the court properly denied the motion without a hearing *(see*CPL 440.30 [4], [5]; *People v Satterfield,*66 NY2d 796 [1985]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Cozier, J.P., Ritter, Luciano and Lifson, JJ., concur.
September 19, 2023

Reply to Attn of: Science Mission Directorate

Summary of NASA Responses to Mars Sample Return Independent Review Board 

Recommendations 

The Mars Sample Return Program (MSR) is a jointly planned mission with the European Space Agency 

to return samples from the surface of Mars to Earth. It represents the bookend of the strategic “Follow 

The Water” Exploration Program for Mars to return samples from a carefully selected site with the 

highest potential for pre-biotic chemistry and extant or extinct life. As such it opens the door for new 

directions in exploration of the Red Planet by robots and humans in the not-too-distant future.

The MSR Independent Review Board’s (IRB) non-consensus report affirms that MSR is a strategically 

and scientifically important mission and includes 59 recommendations that identify critical areas NASA 

must consider to improve the likelihood of mission success. 

NASA accepts the overall conclusion of the MSR IRB that the MSR mission must be reexamined, and is 

appreciative of the Board’s work. The Science Mission Directorate is establishing an MSR IRB Report 

Review Team, under the direction of SMD Deputy Associate Administrator Sandra Connelly, with 

participation by ESA, to review and respond to the Report findings and recommendations in detail, and to 

make a recommendation to NASA and ESA leadership by the second quarter of FY 2024 regarding a path 

forward for MSR within a balanced overall Science program.

I want to thank the IRB Chair, Mr. Orlando Figueroa, for his leadership and insights. I also want to thank 

the highly experienced board that he put together for their hard work and dedication to complete this 

thorough review in such a short amount of time. The IRB’s analysis will provide helpful insights as we 

continue the work to realize this ambitious and groundbreaking mission.

Nicola Fox, Ph. D.

Associate Administrator 

Science Mission Directorate 

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Mary W. Jackson Headquarters

Washington, DC 20546-0001
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-2000
<CASH>                                             161
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      106
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   267
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     267
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             3471
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          2673
<OTHER-SE>                                      (5877)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       267
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    57
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     4726
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (4669)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (4669)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (4669)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0<F1>
<FN>
<F1>Less than .01 per share.
</FN>


</TABLE>
#### WILLIAM G. WEBER v. TOWNSHIP OF WEST MILFORD.

April 10, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Rachel Hoover","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/rlhoove1\/","title":"What is Air Traffic Management eXploration?","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"551EUtwpYR\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/aeronautics\/what-is-air-traffic-management-exploration\/\">What is Air Traffic Management eXploration?<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/aeronautics\/what-is-air-traffic-management-exploration\/embed\/#?secret=551EUtwpYR\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“What is Air Traffic Management eXploration?” — NASA\" data-secret=\"551EUtwpYR\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/istock-000007608295-large.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":405}
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 220

To reinstate and extend the deadline for commencement of construction of 

a hydroelectric project in the State of Illinois. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 28, 2003

Mr. FITZGERALD introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL

To reinstate and extend the deadline for commencement of 

construction of a hydroelectric project in the State of Illinois.

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FEDERAL ENERGY 

4 REGULATORY COMMISSION PROJECT. 

5 Notwithstanding the time period specified in section 

6 13 of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would 

7 otherwise apply to the Federal Energy Regulatory Com8 mission project numbered 11214, the Commission may, at 

9 the request of the licensee for the project, and after rea10 sonable notice, in accordance with the good faith, due dili-
2

•S 220 IS 

1 gence, and public interest requirements of that section and 

2 the Commission’s procedures under that section—

3 (1) reinstate the license for the construction of 

4 the project as of the effective date of the surrender 

5 of the license; and 

6 (2) extend the time period during which the li7 censee is required to commence the construction of 

8 the project for 3 consecutive 2-year periods beyond 

9 the date that is 4 years after the date of issuance 

10 of the license.

Æ
#### Antrobus *v.*West.

Newly Discovered Evidence — Laches — Appeal.

A defendant being advised of the existence of evidence materially advantageous to him is guilty of gross *laches*if no effort is made to produce same, and it will not avail him on appeal from a reversal on the greund of newly-discovered evidence.

APPEAL EROM PENDLETON CIRCUIT COURT.

June 22, 1866.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Peters:

The original action was brought in 1845 against the ancestor of appellants for the land; and in the bill, a somewhat particular description -was given of it referring to it as the land purchased by West of Noe, and it cannot be rationally presumed that he was not apprised by the description thus given of the land sought to be recovered; and if there was any doubt or ambiguity on that point, it was the duty of Amos Antrobus to have the survey made for which there ivas an order.

But the bill "was answered by Antrobus himself, and no complaint made by him of any uncertainty as to the identity of the land sought to be recovered from him. An amended petition was filed in October, 1861, suggesting his death, and asking a revivor *191against Ms cMMren and heirs who are now appellants; it may, therefore, be assumed that he lived some fifteen years after the commencement of the action, and fourteen years after he had filed his answer, during which time the action was pending against him, and in his answer he denied that West had any title, either legal or equitable, but claimed title thereto in himself imder a purchase from Braun, and never during his life claimed to. have bought it from-West. The issue involved in the controversy was West’s right to the land, and the bond now set up, if in existence, would have been effectual to defeat the action; to that point Antrobus’ attention was especially directed; the presumption cannot be indulged that he was either ignorant of, or had forgotten, a fact so essential to his rights, and so effectual as a defense, and a failure to set up and rely upon the bond as a defense evidences the most inexcusable or culpable negligence. But that defense would have been in conflict with the one relied upon.

During the pendency of the former suit appellants could, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, have found and produced the bond now presented as newly-discovered evidence; it was in their possession; it is not even alleged that any examination was made by either of them to ascertain by what title they'held the land, and from all that appears in their petition, the bond could have been produced as easily before the final judgment in the former suit as when it was produced; indeed, it may be assumed from the statements in the petition that appellants made no effort to find the bond or defend the former action until after judgment had been rendered against them.

We are of opinion that the appellants have wholly failed to state in their petition sufficient reasons to authorize a reinvestigation of the same matters first put in issue by the former suit, and the judgment must, therefore, be affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes- Oxley ActI, Donald E. Klumb, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of The Management Network Group, Inc.,certify that:1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of The Management Network Group, Inc.;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisAnnual Report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this Annual Report;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe registrant and have:a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter that has materially affected,or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.          Date: May 14, 2007       BY: /s/ DONALD E. KLUMB     CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER AND TREASURER