alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Employment Letter Agreement



 Exhibit 10.91 
  

			
	

	 	 Path 1 Network Technologies Inc.
 6215 Ferris Square, Suite 140
 San Diego, CA 92121
  
 Phone 858.450.4220
 Fax 858.450.4203
 www.path1.com


  
 August 1, 2005 
  
 Jeremy Ferrell 
  
 Dear Jeremy: 
  
 I have enjoyed talking to you about joining the Path 1 team as Controller. I am delighted to offer you this position as more fully set forth below: 
  

			
	Position:	  	Controller (Subject to Board approval, title of Principal Accounting Officer will be added)
		
	Reporting to:	  	John R. Zavoli, President & CEO
		
	Classification:	  	Exempt
		
	Base Salary:	  	$130,000
		
	Stock Options/Restricted Stock	  	Subject to Board approval, stock options on 20,000 shares of Common Stock with an exercise price at fair market value on the date of grant, vesting in sixteen equal quarterly installments over
four (4) years in accordance with the Company’s 2000 or 2004 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plans.
		
	 	  	Subject to Board approval, 10,000 restricted shares pursuant to the 2000 or 2004 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plans. The restricted shares shall vest over two (2) years, 50% cliff vest after one
(1) year of service, the balance ratably over each successive quarter.
		
	Start Date:	  	On or before August 15, 2005
		
	Offer Expiration Date:	  	August 5, 2005

  
 As a condition of employment, you must
sign Path 1 Network Technologies’ Proprietary Information and Invention Agreement on your first day of employment. This offer is also subject to satisfactory background check and evidence of your entitlement to work in the United States.

  
 We currently offer a comprehensive benefits package, including company paid
medical, dental, vision, Life and LTD. We provide 3 weeks of Paid Time Off, as well as a holiday schedule that includes at least 11 assigned or floating holidays. We also offer a 401(k) plan and Flexible Spending Plan. 
  
 This written offer of employment contains our complete offer. Any representations, whether
written or oral, not contained in this letter are expressly cancelled and superseded by this offer. 







 Jeremy, as I mentioned previously, I am very excited to have you join our company at this very exciting time. I believe
you can make a significant contribution. 
  
 Please sign and date the copy of this
letter and return it to my attention. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. 
  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	 /s/ John R. Zavoli

	John R. Zavoli
	President and CEO

  
 I understand that employment with Path
1 Network Technologies Inc. is “at will”, and not for a specified term, and is at the mutual consent of the employee and the company. Accordingly, either the employee or the company can terminate the employment relationship at will, with
or without cause, at any time. My signature below memorializes my full understanding and acceptance of this offer of employment. 
  

					
	Approved and Accepted	 	 	 	 
			
	/s/ Jeremy Ferrell	 	 	 	8-5-05
	Name	 	 	 	Date

  

 2 of 2
SUBROUTINE EXPPPF(P,PPF)
C
C     PURPOSE--THIS SUBROUTINE COMPUTES THE PERCENT POINT
C              FUNCTION VALUE FOR THE EXPONENTIAL DISTRIBUTION
C              WITH MEAN = 1 AND STANDARD DEVIATION = 1.
C              THIS DISTRIBUTION IS DEFINED FOR ALL NON-NEGATIVE X,
C              AND HAS THE PROBABILITY DENSITY FUNCTION
C              F(X) = EXP(-X).
C              NOTE THAT THE PERCENT POINT FUNCTION OF A DISTRIBUTION 
C              IS IDENTICALLY THE SAME AS THE INVERSE CUMULATIVE
C              DISTRIBUTION FUNCTION OF THE DISTRIBUTION.
C     INPUT  ARGUMENTS--P      = THE SINGLE PRECISION VALUE 
C                                (BETWEEN 0.0 AND 1.0)
C                                AT WHICH THE PERCENT POINT 
C                                FUNCTION IS TO BE EVALUATED.
C     OUTPUT ARGUMENTS--PPF    = THE SINGLE PRECISION PERCENT
C                                POINT FUNCTION VALUE.
C     OUTPUT--THE SINGLE PRECISION PERCENT POINT
C             FUNCTION VALUE PPF.
C     PRINTING--NONE UNLESS AN INPUT ARGUMENT ERROR CONDITION EXISTS. 
C     RESTRICTIONS--P SHOULD BE BETWEEN 0.0 (INCLUSIVELY)
C                   AND 1.0 (EXCLUSIVELY).
C     OTHER DATAPAC   SUBROUTINES NEEDED--NONE.
C     FORTRAN LIBRARY SUBROUTINES NEEDED--ALOG.
C     MODE OF INTERNAL OPERATIONS--SINGLE PRECISION.
C     LANGUAGE--ANSI FORTRAN. 
C     REFERENCES--FILLIBEN, SIMPLE AND ROBUST LINEAR ESTIMATION
C                 OF THE LOCATION PARAMETER OF A SYMMETRIC
C                 DISTRIBUTION (UNPUBLISHED PH.D. DISSERTATION,
C                 PRINCETON UNIVERSITY), 1969, PAGES 21-44, 229-231.
C               --FILLIBEN, 'THE PERCENT POINT FUNCTION',
C                 (UNPUBLISHED MANUSCRIPT), 1970, PAGES 28-31.
C               --JOHNSON AND KOTZ, CONTINUOUS UNIVARIATE
C                 DISTRIBUTIONS--1, 1970, PAGES 207-232.
C     WRITTEN BY--JAMES J. FILLIBEN
C                 STATISTICAL ENGINEERING LABORATORY (205.03)
C                 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS
C                 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20234
C                 PHONE:  301-921-2315
C     ORIGINAL VERSION--JUNE      1972. 
C     UPDATED         --SEPTEMBER 1975. 
C     UPDATED         --NOVEMBER  1975. 
C
C---------------------------------------------------------------------
C
      IPR=6
C
C     CHECK THE INPUT ARGUMENTS FOR ERRORS
C
      IF(P.LT.0.0.OR.P.GE.1.0)GOTO50
      GOTO90
   50 WRITE(IPR,1)
      WRITE(IPR,46)P
      RETURN
   90 CONTINUE
    1 FORMAT(1H ,115H***** FATAL ERROR--THE FIRST  INPUT ARGUMENT TO THE
     1 EXPPPF SUBROUTINE IS OUTSIDE THE ALLOWABLE (0,1) INTERVAL *****)
   46 FORMAT(1H , 35H***** THE VALUE OF THE ARGUMENT IS ,E15.8,6H *****)
C
C-----START POINT-----------------------------------------------------
C
      PPF=-ALOG(1.0-P)
C
      RETURN
      END
Exhibit 11.1
<TABLE>
                     SOLECTRON CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
              STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                      (In thousands, except per share data)
<CAPTION>
                                Three Months Ended     Nine Months Ended
                                      May 31,               May 31,
                                __________________    __________________
                                  1997      1996        1997      1996
                                ________  ________    ________  ________
<S>                             <C>       <C>         <C>       <C>
Weighted average number of 
 shares of common stock and
 common stock equivalents:

Primary:
 Common stock                     56,678    50,928      55,323    50,211
 Common stock equivalents -
  stock options                    1,594     1,528       1,745     1,464
                                ________  ________    ________  ________
    Total primary shares          58,272    52,456      57,068    51,675
                                ________  ________    ________  ________

Fully diluted:
 Common shares issuable
  upon assumed conversion 
  of convertible subordinated
  notes                            3,402     4,562       3,402     2,834

 Incremental increase in 
  common stock equivalents 
  using end of period market 
  price                              358        -          375       112
                                ________  ________    ________  ________    
    Total fully diluted shares    62,032    57,018      60,845    54,621
                                ________  ________    ________  ________


Net income - primary            $ 41,537  $ 27,720    $110,577  $ 82,717

 Interest accretion on 
  convertible subordinated 
  notes, net of taxes              2,380     2,579       7,140     3,293
                                ________  ________    ________  ________
Net income - fully diluted      $ 43,917  $ 30,299    $117,717  $ 86,010
                                ________  ________    ________  ________

Net income per share - primary  $  0.71   $  0.53     $  1.94   $  1.60
                                ________  ________    ________  ________

Net income per share - 
 fully diluted                  $  0.71   $  0.53     $  1.93   $  1.57
                                ________  ________    ________  ________
</TABLE>
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 11756 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. ENRIQUE LOPEZ LARA, also known as Juan Francisco Martinez Reyes , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:16

- CR

- 175

- 1

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Enrique Lopez Lara appeals his conditional guilty plea to one count of making a false claim to United States citizenship in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 911

. His plea agreement reserved his right to appeal the district court’s order denying his moti on to suppress evidence regarding his true identity as a citizen of Mexico

.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED March 9, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-11756 Document: 00514379949 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/09/2018No. 16

- 11756

2 Lopez Lara argues on appeal that the district court erred by denying his motion to suppress. He contends that federal agents detained him at an airport without reasonable suspici on, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and that the eviden ce obtained as a result should have been suppressed

. He concedes, however, as he did in the district court, that his argument is foreclosed by United States v. Roque

- Villanueva , 175 F.3d 345, 34 6 (5th Cir. 1999), and he raises the issue to preserve it for further review

. The Government has moved for summary affirmance or, a lternatively, for an extension of time to file a brief on the merits . This court has held that even if there was a Fourth Am endment violation, evidence of an alien’s identity is not suppressible. See United States v. Hernandez

- Mandujano , 721 F.3d 345, 351 (5th Cir. 2013); Roque

- Villanueva , 175 F.3d at 346. Thus , Lopez Lara ’s argument is in fact foreclosed. See Roque

- Villanueva , 175 F.3d at 346. Accordingly, summary affirmance is appropriate. S ee Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969)

. T he Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and its alternative motion for
an ext ension of time to file a brief on the merits is DENIED. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 16-11756 Document: 00514379949 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/09/2018
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-2054
BOBBY GENE GOODSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusRICHARD D. HOLCOMB, Commissioner of DMV, Commonwealth of Vir ginia; JEAN A. JONES, Supervisor of Driver Monitoring, Division of DMV of Virginia; VIRGINIA STATE POLICE, Area Officer;SAM H. MCVEY, Sergeant; VANCE CORVIN, Magistrate; THOMAS L. HUTTON, General District Court; DAVID BROWN, Retired Judge; CHARLES B.FLANNAGAN, Circuit Court of the City of Bristol, Virginia; ROBERT B. DICKERT, Assistant Attorney, City of Bristol, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge. (CA-97-83-A) Submitted: December 11, 1997 Decided: December 23, 1997 Before HALL and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Bobby Gene Goodson, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Eric Karl Gould Fiske, Rita Marie Sampson, Gregory E. Lucyk, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia; Steven Ray Minor, ELLIOTT, LAWSON & POMRENKE, Bristol, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court and deny Appellant's motion for default judgment. Goodson v. Holcomb , No. CA-97-83-A (W.D. Va. July 11, 1997). 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.

AFFIRMED
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**Certification
      of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section**  **1350,
      as Adopted**


**Pursuant
      to**


**Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**





In
      connection with the amended Annual Report of Buffets Holdings, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended June 27, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, R.
      Michael Andrews, Jr , Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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.





/s/
                R. Michael Andrews, JrR.
                Michael Andrews, JrChief
                Executive Officer(Principal
                Executive Officer)March
                31, 2008





This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Sergio MELO-SANTIAGO, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 04-10246.

D.C. No. CR-03-00204-1-REJ.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 6, 2004.*

Decided Dec. 13, 2004.

Robert A. Bork, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Las Vegas, NV, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Diane L. Dragan, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.

*577Before GOODWIN, WALLACE and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM**

Sergio Melo-Santiago appeals the sentence imposed following his jury conviction for being a deported alien found in the United States in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326.

Pursuant to *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and *Blakely v. Washington,*— U.S. -, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), Melo-Santiago contends that the district court erred in enhancing his sentence based upon facts that were not alleged in the indictment, proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury nor admitted by the defendant. The sole basis for the sentencing enhancement was Melo-Santiago’s prior drug trafficking conviction, and his contention is foreclosed by our holdings in *United States v. Pacheco-Zepeda,*234 F.3d 411, 414 (9th Cir.2000), and *United States v. Quintana-Quintana,*383 F.3d 1052, 1052-53 (9th Cir.2004).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### Commonwealth *v.*Jno. N. Fague.

Courts — Jurisdiction—Appeal.

Appeals from the judgment of a county court refusing to grant a ¡tavern license should he .prosecuted to the 'Court of Appeals.

*732APPEAL FROM TRIMBLE1 CIRCUIT COURT.

June 10, 1873.

Rodman, *for appellant. ■*

*Dmne, for appellee.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The case of *Bochler v. Commonwealth,*1 Duvall 3, settles that appeals from the judgment of county courts refusing to' grant tavern license should be prosecuted to this, court. Hence the Trimble Circuit Court had no. jurisdiction and should not have entertained the appeal in this case. Its judgment directing the county court to set aside its order refusing appellant such license, and to grant the same, is therefore reversed. The cause is remanded to the circuit court, with directions to dismiss the appeal.
```

                                 April 12, 2002

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Re:     MAXXAM Inc. - Requirements for Arthur Andersen LLP Auditing Clients

Dear Sir or Madam:

         Arthur Andersen LLP has represented to MAXXAM Inc. that its audit was
subject to Andersen's quality control system for the U.S. accounting and
auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was
conducted in compliance with professional standards and that there was
appropriate continuity of Andersen personnel working on the audit, availability
of national office consultation and availability of personnel at foreign
affiliates of Arthur Andersen to conduct the relevant portions of the audit.

                                        By:          ELIZABETH D. BRUMLEY
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                     Elizabeth D. Brumley
                                                        Controller
                                               (Principal Accounting Officer)
```
January 29, 2015



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

ANDRE OSAGIE , Appellant

NO. 14

- 13

- 01138

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

________________________________ This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED

. We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2



                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in this registration statement of our report dated June 26, 1998,
included in this Form 11-K, into the Company's previously filed Registration
Statement on Form S-8, File No. 33-86010.

                                        ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Denver, Colorado
June 26, 1998
Presidential Documents

69749 

Federal Register 

Vol. 79, No. 225 

Friday, November 21, 2014 

Title 3— 

The President 

Memorandum of September 26, 2014 

Certification Concerning U.S. Participation in the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in 

the Central African Republic Consistent With Section 2005 

of the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act 

Memorandum for the Secretary of State 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the 

laws of the United States of America, and consistent with section 2005 

of the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act of 2002 (22 U.S.C. 7424), 

concerning the participation of members of the Armed Forces of the United 

States in certain United Nations peacekeeping and peace enforcement operations, I hereby certify that members of the U.S. Armed Forces participating 

in the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission 

in the Central African Republic are without risk of criminal prosecution 

or other assertion of jurisdiction by the International Criminal Court (ICC) 

because the Central African Republic has entered into an agreement in 

accordance with Article 98 of the Rome Statute preventing the ICC from 

proceeding against members of the Armed Forces of the United States present 

in that country. 

You are authorized and directed to submit this certification to the Congress 

and publish it in the Federal Register. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, September 26, 2014 

[FR Doc. 2014–27847 

Filed 11–20–14; 11:15 am] 

Billing code 4710–10 


mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with O0OB#1.EPS</GPH>
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 237 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 237

  To limit the access of lobbyists to the Hall of the House, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 18, 1997

  Ms. Woolsey (for himself, Mrs. Lowey, Ms. DeGette, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. 
 Torres, Mr. Delahunt, Ms. Christian-Green, Ms. Furse, Mr. Stark, Mr. 
Rush, Mr. Barrett of Wisconsin, Mr. Tierney, Mr. Olver, Mr. Luther, Mr. 
Taylor of Mississippi, Mr. Engel, Mr. Green, Ms. Lofgren, Mr. Ford, Mr. 
 Kennedy of Massachusetts, Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Vento, and Mr. Shays) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                                on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  To limit the access of lobbyists to the Hall of the House, and for 
                            other purposes.

    Resolved, That clause 3 of rule XXXII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives is amended to read as follows:
    ``3. (a) Except as provided by paragraph (b), ex-Members of the 
House of Representatives, former Parliamentarians of the House, and 
former elected officers and former elected minority employees of the 
House shall be entitled to the privilege of admission to the Hall of 
the House and rooms leading thereto only if they do not have any direct 
personal or pecuniary interest in any legislative measure pending 
before the House or reported by any committee of the House.
    ``(b) No individual who is a lobbyist registered under section 308 
of the Federal Regulation of Lobbying Act may be admitted to the Hall 
of the House except an ex-Member to attend ceremonial functions 
attended by other ex-Members.
    ``(c) The Speaker shall promulgate such regulations as may be 
necessary to implement the provisions of this rule and to ensure its 
enforcement.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Commonwealth *v.*Martin Shankes.

Appeal — Final Judgment.

An order dismissing a cause is a final judgment from which an appeal may be prosecuted.

Judgment — Reversal—Effect.

After the reversal of a judgment it becomes a mere nullity, and the failure of the court to set it aside gives it no validity.

Execution — On Reversed Judgment.

An execution can not properly issue from a judgment which has been reversed.

APPEAL FROM DAVIES CIRCUIT COURT.

December 10, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Pryor-:

The order dismissing the case against Shankes was á final judgment and from which an appeal could have been prosecuted. The mandate of the court of appeals had been entered of record in the lower court, reversing the judgment rendered against the appellee and thereby that judgment was rendered inoperative and no execution could have properly issued upon it. After the reversal the judgment was a mere nullity and the failure of the court below to set it aside gave it no vitality.

*80
      *Cofer, for appellants.*

The opinion delivered by the circuit' judge and made part of the record is conclusive of the question presented.

The judgment of the court below is therefore affirmed. The rule against Judge Cofer is discharged as he has no right to investigate the case on the docket at a time after there was a final judgment and over which he had no control.

-, *for appellee.*