alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.45



 Exhibit 10.45 

 
 



 
 October 2, 2012 

Dr. Robert A. Young 
 [address redacted] 
 Dear Bob: 

I am pleased to confirm our offer for you to continue as President and CEO of Tessera Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) and to continue as an
employee of Tessera Global Services, Inc. (“TGSI”). This letter is intended to amend the letter dated May 11, 2011 between you and Tessera, Inc. Except as specifically amended herein, the terms and conditions set forth in the
May 11, 2011 letter continue in full force and effect. 
  

	 	•	you will receive an annual salary of $684,000, which will be paid in accordance with TGSI’s normal payroll procedures. 


	 	•	you will be eligible to receive an annual MBO bonus of up to 100% of your base salary paid on an annual basis. This bonus will be based on objectives set forth and
mutually agreed upon by you and the Company’s Board of Directors. 


	 	•	the Company’s Board of Directors met today and granted you a performance-based option to purchase 550,000 shares of the Company’s Common Stock at a price per
share equal to the fair market value per share of the Common Stock on the date of grant. This option grant is subject to the terms and conditions of the Company’s Stock Option Plan and Stock Option Agreement, including the performance-based
vesting requirements set forth in the option grant. 


	 	•	TGSI will pay you an additional $150,000 per year (paid in accordance with TGSI’s normal payroll procedures) to offset expenses incurred by you related to the time
you spend in California (e.g., apartment rental, travel to and from your home, car leasing, utilities, etc.). TGSI will not otherwise reimburse your for expenses related to the time you spend in California and no tax gross-up will be applied,
either to the $150,000 or to your other compensation. 

 If you could please acknowledge your acceptance of the terms and
conditions contained in this letter by signing in the space provided below, I would appreciate it. 

Sincerely, 
 /s/ Edmundo Ruiz 
 Executive Vice President & Chief
Administration Officer 
 Agreed to and accepted: 

Signature: /s/ Robert A. Young 

Printed Name: Robert A. Young 

Date: October 3, 2012 
 3025 Orchard Parkway l San Jose, CA 95134 l Phone 1
(408) 321.6000 l Fax 1 (408) 321.8257
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION
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 filing of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2002 (the "Report") by ADE Corporation (the
"Company"), the undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
my knowledge:



| |  | /s/CHRIS L. KOLIOPOULOSName: Chris L. Koliopoulos, Ph.D.
Title: Chief Executive Officer
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. William A. WHITE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-7533.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 18, 2012.

Decided: Dec. 28, 2012.

William A. White, Appellant Pro Se. Tovah Renee Calderon, Jessica Dunsay Silver, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Before SHEDD and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

William A. White seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) motion without prejudice. The order is not ap-pealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 *309U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(e)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see *Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that White has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarterly period ended March
31,
2007 (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 results of operation of the Company.
 By:
    /s/  Bryan McGuireName:
    Bryan McGuireTitle:
    Chief Financial OfficerDate:
    May 15, 2007
SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT
ADVANTA BANK CORP.
ADVANTA BUSINESS CARD MASTER TRUST
   1.
    
    The Bank is the Servicer as of the date hereof.2.
    
    The undersigned is an Authorized Officer who is duly authorized as required pursuant to
the Indenture to execute and deliver this Certificate.3.
    
    A review of the activities of the Servicer during the twelve-month period ended
December 31, 2008, and of its performance under the Agreement throughout such twelve-month
period was conducted under my supervision.4.
    
    Based on such review, the Servicer has, to the best of my knowledge, performed in all
material respects its obligations under the Agreement throughout such twelve-month period
and no default in the performance of such obligations has occurred or is continuing except
as set forth in paragraph 5 below.5.
    
    The following is a description of each default in the performance of the Servicers
obligations under the provisions of the Agreement known to me to have been made by the
Servicer during such twelve-month period which sets forth in detail (i) the nature of each
such default, (ii) the action taken by the Servicer, if any, to remedy each such default
and (iii) the current status of each such default:
   ADVANTA BANK CORP.,
as ServicerBy:
    /s/ John MooreName:
    John MooreTitle:
    President
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 71 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 71

To require customer consent to the provision of wireless call location 
                              information.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 2003

Mr. Frelinghuysen introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                  the Committee on Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require customer consent to the provision of wireless call location 
                              information.

    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 Privacy Protection Act of 
2003''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE CALL LOCATION INFORMATION CONCERNING 
              WIRELESS CUSTOMERS.

    (a) Informed Consent to Provision of Location Information.--Section 
222 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 222) is amended
            (1) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (i); and
            (2) by inserting before such subsection the following new 
        subsection:
    ``(h) Authority to Use Wireless Location and Crash Information.--A 
customer shall not be considered to have granted express prior 
authorization for purposes of subsection (f) unless--
            ``(1) the carrier has provided the customer in writing a 
        clear, conspicuous, and complete disclosure of the carrier's 
        practices with respect to the collection and use of location 
        information, transaction information, and automatic crash 
        identification information, before any such information is 
        disclosed or used, and such disclosure includes--
                    ``(A) a description of the specific types of 
                information that is collected by the carrier;
                    ``(B) how the carrier uses such information; and
                    ``(C) what information may be shared or sold to 
                other companies and third parties;
            ``(2) the customer has agreed in writing to the collection 
        and use of such information, or has agreed in writing to such 
        collection and use subject to certain limitations; and
            ``(3) the carrier has established and maintains reasonable 
        procedures to protect the confidentiality, security, and 
        integrity of the information the carrier collects and maintains 
        in accordance with such customer consents.''.
    (b) Regulations Required.--The Federal Communications Commission 
shall prescribe regulations to implement the amendments made by 
subsection (a) within 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
[No. 55308-9-I.

Division One.

November 7, 2005.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Clyde Everett Lawhorn, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 03-1-03509-9, Doulgas D. McBroom, J., entered November 4, 2004. *Affirmed in part*and *remanded*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
#### In the Matter of Michael Mackie, Petitioner, v Glenn Goord, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, Respondent.

[853 NYS2d 218]

*953Pursuant to an investigation, facility personnel approached petitioner’s spouse during a scheduled visitation, whereupon she surrendered 10 latex glove tips containing approximately 30 grams of “a green vegetable material which she admitted was marihuana.” As a result, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with conspiring to introduce drugs and soliciting others to smuggle drugs into the facility. Following a tier III disciplinary hearing, petitioner was found guilty and a penalty of 12 months in the special housing unit and a corresponding loss of privileges was imposed. Petitioner’s administrative appeal proved unsuccessful, prompting him to commence this CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge respondent’s determination.

Preliminarily, we reject petitioner’s assertion that the hearing was not completed in a timely fashion, *as*the record reflects that valid extensions were obtained to accommodate, among other things, petitioner’s request for certain witnesses *(see Matter of Farrell v Selsky,*32 AD3d 1103, 1104 [2006]). Moreover, the regulatory time limits are directory, not mandatory, and we reject petitioner’s contention that he was prejudiced by the resulting delay *(see Matter of Chaney v Selsky,*37 AD3d 983, 984 [2007]).

As for petitioner’s claim that the Hearing Officer erred in failing to provide him with a copy of his spouse’s sworn statement, we need note only that the text of that statement was read into the record, petitioner was afforded an opportunity to review the statement and he used the contents thereof to both raise various objections and question his spouse. Therefore, we are unable to discern any prejudice to petitioner.

With regard to the omission of certain NIK testing documents, where, as here, an inmate is charged with smuggling and conspiracy, “the documentation requirements of 7 NYCRR 1010.5 do not apply” *(Matter of Lovett v Goord,*26 AD3d 563, 564 [2006]) and, in any event, petitioner’s spouse admitted that the substance was marihuana. Finally, the misbehavior report, the testimony adduced at the hearing, the transcript of a three-way telephone conversation between petitioner, his sister and his wife and the confidential information contained in the record provide substantial evidence of petitioner’s guilt *(see id.*at 564; *Matter of Johnson v Goord,*7 AD3d 863, 863-864 [2004]).

Cardona, P.J., Carpinello, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-10878

Summary Calendar

____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Hector Uriel Rivera-Lares, 

Defendant—Appellant.

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:22-CR-111-1

______________________________

Before King, Higginson, and Willett, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Hector Uriel 

Rivera-Lares has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Rivera-Lares has not filed a response. 

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

_____________________

* This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 30, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-10878 Document: 00516694603 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/30/2023
No. 22-10878

2

reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from 

further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th 

Cir. R. 42.2.

Case: 22-10878 Document: 00516694603 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/30/2023
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION 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 Quarterly Report of Matritech, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the SEC on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Stephen D. Chubb, 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 results of operations of the
Company.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Matritech, Inc. and will be retained by Matritech, Inc. and
furnished to the SEC or its staff upon request.

/s/ Stephen D. Chubb

Stephen D. Chubb
Chief Executive Officer
August 9, 2005
Number of green technologies Number of Percent of 

or practices reported establishments establishments

Total, all establishments .......................................... 6,624,600 100.0

No green technologies or practices reported ............ 1,691,100 25.5

At least one green technology or practice reported ...... 4,933,500 74.5

By number of practices reported

One ............................................................ 1,646,700 24.9

Two ............................................................ 1,721,800 26.0

Three ......................................................... 976,100 14.7

Four ............................................................ 421,600 6.4

Five ............................................................ 136,400 2.1

Six ............................................................ 30,900 0.5

Table 3. Number and percent of establishments reporting green technologies and 

practices, by number of green technologies or practices reported, August 2011
BRIAN QUINN

Chief Justice

JAMES T. CAMPBELL

Justice

MACKEY K. HANCOCK

Justice

PATRICK A. PIRTLE

Justice

Court of Appeals

Seventh District of Texas

Potter County Courts Building

501 S. Fillmore, Suite 2-A

Amarillo, Texas 79101-2449

www.txcourts.gov/7thcoa.aspx

VIVIAN LONG

Clerk

MAILING ADDRESS:

P. O. Box 9540

79105-9540

(806) 342-2650

February 23, 2015

Joel Cook

LAW OFFICES OF WM EVERETT

SEYMORE

810 Main St.

Lubbock, TX 79401

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

Jeffrey S. Ford

Assistant Criminal District Attorney

P.O. Box 10536

Lubbock, TX 79408

* DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL *

RE: Case Number: 07-14-00369-CR, 07-14-00370-CR

Trial Court Case Number: 2013-400,580, 2013-400,581

Style: Zavier Allen v. The State of Texas

Dear Counsel:

The following has been filed in the captioned appeal:

Supplemental Reporter’s Record (1 volume)

Very truly yours,

Vivian Long

VIVIAN LONG, CLERK

xc: Honorable Bradley S. Underwood (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

Janette Bills (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

FILE COPY
Certification of the Chief Financial 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 Quarterly Report of Northeast Bancorp (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Robert S. Johnson, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge,that:

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 results of operations of the Company.

|May 14, 2003 | /s/ Robert S. Johnson  
|------------ | -----------------------
|             | Robert S. Johnson      
|             | Chief Financial Officer
Case 2:11-cv-03621-CCC-JAD Document 138 Filed 03/21/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID: 1159
# 03-10

Environmental Heat 2003-2010 - continued		

Environmental Heat 2003-2010		

Environmental Heat 2003-2010 - continued		

Environmental Heat 2003-2010		

Page &P
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.01
 
                              CONDUCTUS, INC.  
 
                STATEMENTS OF COMPUTATION OF LOSS PER SHARE 
                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA) 
                                (UNAUDITED) 

                            THREE MONTHS ENDED            SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                  JUNE 30,                     JUNE 30, 
                            ------------------            -----------------
                            1997          1996            1997         1996
                            ----          ----            ----         ----
                                                                     
Net loss                  $(2,390)     $(1,347)         $(3,753)     $(2,726)
                          -------      -------          -------      -------


Weighted average number                                          
of shares outstanding       6,864        5,749             6,853       5,728
                          -------      -------          -------      -------

Common and common 
equivalent shares used in                                        
computing per share         6,864        5,749            6,853        5,728
amounts                   -------      -------          -------      -------
                          -------      -------          -------      -------
                                             
Net loss per share        $ (0.35)     $ (0.23)         $ (0.55)     $ (0.48)
                          -------      -------          -------      -------
                          -------      -------          -------      -------

                                       -20-
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Required by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350

(Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

In connection with the filing by ADE Corporation (the Company) of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter
ended July 31, 2006 (the Report), the undersigned, as the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



| | 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |                                      
|------------------------ |  | -------------------------------------
|Date: September 11, 2006 |  | /s/ Chris L. Koliopoulos             
|                         |  | Chris L. Koliopoulos, Ph.D.          
|                         |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
Business Establishments within Rita-Damaged Areas as Identified by FEMA
Texas and Louisiana

A 0 10 20Miles
Liuuiitiiiis

Gulf of Mexico

Business Establishments
@ Within Damaged Areas

Within half a mile of Damaged Areas

© Outside of Damaged Areas

Texas
0.1% of Texas' employment was
within the FEMA identified Damage Areas

Business Quarterly
Establishments Employees Wages

565 9,540 $86,449,504

1.2% was inside or within half a mile of
the FEMA Identified Damage Areas

Business Quarterly
Establishments Employees Wages

6,342 110,894 $1,083,940,055

Louisiana
0.2% of Louisiana's employment was
within the FEMA Identified Damage Areas

Business Quarterly
Establishments Employees Wages

233 3,066 $28,764,962

2.1% was inside or within half a mile of
the FEMA identified Damage Areas

Business Quarterly
Establishments Employees Wages

2,380 38,457 $322,014,376

Data source
Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW),
developed through a cooperative program between
the states and the U.S, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
FEMA Remote Sensing Damage Areas
1800 September 28, 2005, www.gismaps.fema gov

ment is from December 2004. Quarterly Wages
1004

are the total paid for the Fourth Quarter of
Data are adjusted to include business establishments
for whom accurate addresses are not available

Cartography by
State of California
Employment Development Department

September 2005