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

EXHIBIT 10.18

PARTIAL LEASE TERMINATION AGREEMENT

This Partial Lease Termination Agreement is made and entered into as of February 23, 2000, by and between Limar Realty Corp #26, a California corporation
("Landlord") and Preview Systems, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, successor in interest to Preview Software, Inc., a California corporation
("Tenant").

R E C I T A L S

This Partial Lease Termination Agreement (the "Partial Termination Agreement") is made with reference to and in
reliance upon the following facts:



Therefore,
for valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:







IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, Landlord and Tenant have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.

|TENANT:                                       |  | LANDLORD:                                      
|--------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------
|Preview Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation |  | Limar Realty Corp #26, a California corporation
|By:                                           |  |                                                
|                                              |  |                                                
|Name:                                         |  |                                                
|                                              |  |                                                
|Title:                                        |  |                                                
|                                              |  |                                                
|By:                                           |  |                                                
|                                              |  |                                                
|Name:                                         |  |                                                
|                                              |  |                                                
|Title:                                        |  |                                                
|                                              |  |                                                



## QuickLinks
#### Pickens *v.*Hobbs et al.

*Practice.—Juror not a*Householder.—Where a motion for a new trial has been made on the ground that one of the jurors was not a householder, and that the party making the motion accepted him in ignorance of that fact, and the court has overruled the motion, the ruling will be sustained on appeal, if in the affidavits on the point the preponderance of testimony sustains Ihe ruling.

*Same.—Conflict of*Testimony.—This court wiil not determine the preponderance of testimony in cases of conflict thereof.

APPEAL from the Orange Circuit Court.

Buskirk, J.

This case is the same as the case of *Fisher*v. *Hobbs, post,*p. 276, with the exceptions hereinafter stated.

In the present case no question is made upon the giving or refusing to give instructions to the jury.

Counsel for appellant insist that the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial upon two grounds. The first is, that one of the jurors who tried the cause was not a householder, and that the appellant accepted him in ignorance of the fact,

The contest of affidavits upon the competency of the juror in question stands as follows :

Two of the attorneys for appellant swore that they had no knowledge or information that William F. Osborn, the juror in question, was not a householder, until after the jury had *271returned their verdict. One person testified that Osborn was a married man, but boarded with and clerked for his father-in-law, Hugh Wilkins.

*F. Wilson*and *A. C. Voris,*for appellant.

*A. y Simpson,*for appellees.

Three persons filed affidavits on behalf of the appellees, in which they stated that they were well and intimately acquainted with Osborn; that he was a married man and clerk of the West Baden hotel, and that he and his family had furnished and occupied a portion of said house separate and distinct from that occupied by Hugh Wilkins, and that they knew that he was a householder of said county.

It seems to us that the prepondei'ance of the testimony was in favor of the competency* of the juror.

It is next insisted that the verdict of the jury was contrary to the evidence. There were fourteen witnesses who testified on behalf of the appellant, and placed the damages of the appellant at sums ranging from one hundred and fifty to three hundred and fifty dollars.

There were twenty witnesses who testified on behalf of the appellees. Some of them testified that appellant would not sustain any damage, some that he would be benefited, and others that the value of his farm would be increased from one to three hundred dollars.

It is quite obvious that we could not undertake to reconcile the testimony and determine whether the jury decided rightly, in finding that the appellant would not be damaged by the proposed road.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Appellee

v.

CRAIG MURPHY,

Appellant

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 741 CAP

Appeal from the Judgment of 

Sentence imposed November 1, 

1990 and re-imposed February 24, 

1993, in the Court of Common 

Pleas, Philadelphia County, Criminal 

Division at No. CP-51-CR-0126101-

1984. (Nunc Pro Tunc rights 

reinstated on May 3, 2017)

CONCURRING STATEMENT

JUSTICE DONOHUE DECIDED: October 15, 2020

I join the order as I am constrained to do as a result of this Court’s precedential 

opinion in Commonwealth v. Reid, 235 A.3d 1124 (Pa. 2020). For the reasons stated in 

my dissenting opinion in Reid, I continue to hold the view that Williams v. Pennsylvania, 

___ U.S. ___, 136 S.Ct. 1899 (2016), mandates that this defendant receive a de novo 

appeal to this Court because former Justice Castille, while the District Attorney of 

Philadelphia, authorized the pursuit of the death penalty in his case and later participated 

in the appeal of the imposition of that sentence. Williams should have been retroactively 

applied to this defendant and the two other defendants similarly situated. I continue to 

believe that the preservation of the integrity of this Court demanded no less.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 21

- 00355

- CV

P. B. , Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services , Appellee

FROM THE 353RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D

- 1

- FM

- 19

- 008234 , THE HONORABLE JESSICA MANGRU M , JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant P.B. has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss this appeal. We grant

appellant ’ s motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).

__________________________________________ Edward Smith , Justice

Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Smith

Dismissed on Appellant ’ s Motion

Filed: August 25, 2021
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERNCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         619,391
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  535,474
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (214,756)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,638,504
<PP&E>                                       2,468,809
<DEPRECIATION>                               (601,231)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              15,122,962
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,144,126
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,115
<COMMON>                                         9,422
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,968,299
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,978,836
<SALES>                                      4,087,216
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,119,793
<CGS>                                      (3,346,920)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              (3,346,920)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           (5,804,864)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (34,793)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,066,784)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,066,784)
<DISCONTINUED>                                (42,103)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 90,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,018,887)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.61)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.61)


</TABLE>
11634.

#### City of Collins *v.*Findley.

Decided February 24, 1921.

Action for damages; from Tattnall superior court — Judge Sheppard. May 1, 1920.

*Elders & DeLoach,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. T. Burkhalter,*contra.

Stephens, J.

1. Failure of a municipal corporation to use due care in maintaining its streets in a condition safe for persons traveling over them renders the municipality liable to any one injured without fault on his part on account of any negligently permitted defect in a small bridge or timbers placed across a ditch in the street.

2. Where a bridge over a ditch along a public thoroughfare in a city is covered with planks apparently safe, but one of which, as a team passes over the bridge, flies up and injures one of the mules of the team, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies and the inference is authorized that the municipality was negligent.

3. The evidence authorized the inference that the driveway over which the plaintiff’s mules were traveling and in which the bridge was located was a public thoroughfare in the city of Collins, and otherwise authorized the verdict for the plaintiff. It was therefore not error to overrule the defendant’s motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Sill, J., concur.*
<PAGE>

                                                               [ANDERSEN LOGO]

                                                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

                     CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of
our report dated February 1, 2002, included in this Form 10-K, into the
Company's previously filed Registration Statements on Form S-8 (File Nos.
333-30642, 333-56998, 333-67780, and 333-73492) and Registration Statement on
Form S-3 (File No. 333-53756). It should be noted that we have not audited
any financial statements of the Company subsequent to December 31, 2001 or
performed any audit procedures subsequent to the date of our report.

                                                      /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 22, 2002
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         416
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  267
<ALLOWANCES>                                    34
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               822
<PP&E>                                         600
<DEPRECIATION>                                   0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                6528
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         2724
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<COMMON>                                        20
<OTHER-SE>                                    3804
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  6528
<SALES>                                       1020
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              1020
<CGS>                                          563
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  563
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              2736
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            2213
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (4491)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (4491)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.28)


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

 

The undersigned,Michael P. McGee, the Chief Financial Officer of International RectifierCorporation (the “Company”), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, hereby certifies that,to his knowledge:

 

(i)            the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of the Company forthe fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2005 (the “Report) fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Actof 1934; and

 

(ii)           the information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company as of, and for the periods presented in the Report.

 

Dated: May 17, 2006

 
|   | /s/ Michael P. McGee                                                                                |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Michael P. McGee                                                                                    |
|   | Executive Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial  and Accounting  Officer) |

 

A signed original of thewritten statement required by Section 906 has been provided to InternationalRectifier Corporation and will be furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
National Advisory Committee on Windstorm Impact 

Reduction (NACWIR) Member 

 

 

Thomas L. Smith, AIA, RRC

President

TLSmith Consulting, Inc.

Mr. Smith’s expertise is in the field of wind performance of 

buildings. He is a licensed architect and a Registered Roofing 

Consultant with a unique combination of experience with winddamage investigations, involvement in academic and applied 

research, involvement in building codes and standards 

development, coauthoring wind design guidelines, and designing 

buildings in high-wind regions. 

Mr. Smith has conducted several hundred detailed building investigations, which include all the 

types of low and steep-slope roof systems used in the United States. In 2002, he was selected as 

a member of NOAA’s National Weather Service Quick-Response Team, which documents 

damage within 24 hours of a tornado event and helps determine tornado ratings. Since 1995, he 

has participated in many hurricane, typhoon, and tornado damage investigations with FEMA. 

His wind design guideline work includes coauthoring seven guides for FEMA, one American 

Institute of Architects guide, and one design guide for the National Research Council of Canada. 

Mr. Smith was a member of the Technology Assessment and Advisory Council for the NSFfunded Colorado State University/TTU Cooperative Program in Wind Engineering (1989-1998). 

In 2002, he served on the panel of six national experts who developed the wind speed-damage 

relationships that underpin the Enhanced
**EXHIBIT 10.7**

 

ANDREW CORPORATION

EXECUTIVE SEVERANCE BENEFIT PLAN AGREEMENT

 

THIS AGREEMENT, made this 5th day of July, 2004, by and between AndrewCorporation (the “Company”) and Paul Cox (the “Executive”),

 

WITNESSETH:

 

WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Andrew Corporation ExecutiveSeverance Benefit Plan, as amended and restated effective May 14, 2004 (the“Plan”); and

 

WHEREAS, the Executive has been designated as an eligible participantin the Plan;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Executive and Company hereby agree as follows:

 

1.                                       PlanBenefits.  The Executive has beendesignated as a TIER II Participant in the Plan and shall be eligible solelyfor the benefits set forth therein applicable to TIER II Participants.  The receipt of such benefits shall besubject to all of the terms and conditions set forth in the Plan, including,but not limited to, terms related to the amount, time and form ofbenefits.  By execution of thisAgreement, the Executive agrees to be bound by the provisions of the Plan, asamended and restated effective May 14, 2004, and as may be subsequentlyamended.

 

2.                                       Arbitration.  The Executive acknowledges thatSection 7.2 of the Plan contains an arbitration provision, and byexecution of this Agreement agrees to be bound by the terms of such arbitrationprovision.

 

3.                                       PlanNot Contract of Employment.  ThePlan does not constitute a contract of employment and nothing in the Plan shallbe construed to give the Executive the right to be retained by the Company orto any benefits not specifically provided by the Plan.

 

4.                                       PlanSupercedes Prior Change in Control Severance Agreements.  The Executive acknowledges and agrees thatthe benefits and terms set forth in the May 14, 2004 restatement of the Plan,as applicable to the Participant based on the Tier designated in paragraph 1above, are a replacement for and in lieu of any benefits to which the Executivemay have been entitled under the Plan prior to its restatement or under anyother agreement with the Company relating to Change in Control severance benefits.  The Executive further acknowledges suchbenefits and terms may be subsequently amended pursuant to Section 7.1 ofthe Plan.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to beexecuted as of the date first above written.

 
| EXECUTIVE       | ANDREW CORPORATION                           |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------|
|            |                                         |
|            |                                         |
| /s/ Paul R. Cox |                                         | /s/ Ralph E. Faison |   |
| , individually  |                                         | By: Ralph E. Faison |
|            | Its: President & Chief Executive Officer |
|                 |                                              |  |  |  |

 

----
EXHIBIT 10:


A  one  year  consulting arrangement was orally entered  into  between
Provident  Financial  Group, Inc. and its former President  and  Chief
Executive  Officer, Allen L. Davis. Under the arrangement,  Mr.  Davis
will  be  available  for consultation as reasonably  required  by  the
Company  to  assure a seamless transition of management  and  to  take
advantage of Mr. Davis' extensive banking experience. As compensation,
for  such  an  arrangement,  Mr. Davis will  receive  compensation  of
$1  million, payable quarterly in arrears in Company stock or cash  at
the discretion of the Company.
Skip to main content    

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

**Official websites use .gov**              A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.            

**Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**              A **lock** (  LockA locked padlock) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.            

https://www.nist.gov/batch

### HEADQUARTERS

301-975-2000

Webmaster | Contact Us | Our Other Offices

TwitterFacebookLinkedInInstagramYouTubeGiphyRSS FeedMailing List

Feedback

            -  Site Privacy 
            -  Accessibility 
            -  Privacy Program 
            -  Copyrights 
            -  Vulnerability Disclosure 
            -  No Fear Act Policy 
            -  FOIA 
            -  Environmental Policy 
            -  Scientific Integrity 
            -  Information Quality Standards 
            -  Commerce.gov 
            -  Science.gov 
            -  USA.gov 
            -  Vote.gov
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v James Gonzalez, Appellant.

[967 NYS2d 862]

An appeal having been taken to this Court by the above-named appellant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Michael J. Obus, J.), rendered on or about February 2, 2009, said appeal having been argued by counsel for the respective parties, due deliberation having been had thereon, and finding the sentence not excessive, it is unanimously ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same is hereby affirmed. Concur— Gonzalez, P.J., Renwick, DeGrasse, Manzanet-Daniels and Feinman, JJ.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1914 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Library of Congress, 

Congressional Research Service, Salaries and Expenses for fiscal year 2024. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2023 

Mr. BIGGS (for himself, Mr. ROSENDALE, Mr. GAETZ, Mr. GOOD of Virginia, 

Mr. ROY, and Mr. CRANE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, Salaries and Expenses for fiscal year 2024. 

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

3 SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR 

4 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL 

5 RESEARCH SERVICE, SALARIES AND EX6 PENSES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, 

8 amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise avail9 able for Library of Congress, Congressional Research 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 1914 IH

1 Service, Salaries and Expenses for fiscal year 2024 may 

2 not exceed $125,688,000. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB