January 27, 2017

Ronald O. Mueller

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

shareholderproposals@gibsondunn.com

Re:

Intel Corporation

Dear Mr. Mueller:

This is in regard to your letter dated January 26, 2017 concerning the shareholder

proposal submitted by Holy Land Principles, Inc. for inclusion in Intel’s proxy materials

for its upcoming annual meeting of security holders. Your letter indicates that the

proponent has withdrawn the proposal and that Intel therefore withdraws its

January 13, 2017 request for a no-action letter from the Division. Because the matter is

now moot, we will have no further comment.

Copies of all of the correspondence related to this matter will be made available

on our website at http://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/cf-noaction/14a-8.shtml. For

your reference, a brief discussion of the Division’s informal procedures regarding

shareholder proposals is also available at the same website address.

Sincerely,

Evan S. Jacobson

Special Counsel

cc:

Barbara J. Flaherty

Holy Land Principles, Inc.

barbara@holylandprinciples.org

Ronald O. Mueller

Direct: 202.955.8671

Fax: 202.530.9569

RMueller@gibsondunn.com

January 26, 2017

VIA E-MAIL

Office of Chief Counsel

Division of Corporation Finance

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, NE

Washington, DC 20549

Re:

Intel Corporation

Stockholder Proposal of Holy Land Principles, Inc.

Exchange Act of 1934—Rule 14a-8

Ladies and Gentlemen:

In a letter dated January 13, 2017, we requested that the staff of the Division of Corporation

Finance concur that our client, Intel Corporation (the “Company”), could exclude from its

proxy statement and form of proxy for its 2017 Annual Meeting of Stockholders a

stockholder proposal (the “Proposal”) and statement in support thereof submitted by The

Holy Land Principles, Inc. (the “Proponent”).

Enclosed as Exhibit A is a letter from the Proponent, dated January 21, 2017, withdrawing

the Proposal. In reliance on this letter, we hereby withdraw the January 13, 2017 no-action

request relating to the Company’s ability to exclude the Proposal pursuant to Rule 14a-8

under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Please do not hesitate to call me at (202) 955-8671 or Irving S. Gomez, the Company’s

Managing Counsel, Corporate Legal Group, at (408) 653-7868 if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Ronald O. Mueller

Enclosure

cc:

Irving S. Gomez, Intel Corporation

Fr. Sean McManus, Holy Land Principles, Inc.

Barbra J. Flaherty, Holy Land Principles, Inc.

EXHIBIT A

President

Fr.

Sean

Manus

Executive Vice President

Barbara J. Flaherty

Holy

Land Principles,

Inc.

Ame

ip I

e s

I I

ow in

A me

inv

tme

Irving

Gomez

Corporate

Secretary

Intel Corporation

2200

Mission

Blvd.

Santa

Clara,

95054

January

2I,2017

Dear

Mr.

Gomez,

This

inform

Intel

Corporation that

Holy

Land

Principles,

Inc.

withdraws its

Shareholder

Resolution that was

sent

for inclusion

in Intel's

2017

Proxy

Statement

for the 2017

Arrual

General Meeting.

Thank

you

for

facilitating

the

withdrawal of

the

Holy

Land Principles,

Inc.'s

Proposal.

P.O. Box

15128

'Capitol

Hill.

Washington,

D.C. 20003-0849

Tel:

(202)

488-0107 Fax: (202)

488-7531

Email : $-gpport@_ES!y!Ad!fi_!S!pl_e_s.q4g

Web

Site:

www.HolyLandPrinciples.org

Barbara

Flaherty

Executive

Vice

President

Ronald O. Mueller

Direct: +1 202.955.8671

Fax: +1 202.530.9569

RMueller@gibsondunn.com

January 13, 2017

VIA E-MAIL

Office of Chief Counsel

Division of Corporation Finance

Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, NE

Washington, DC 20549

Re:

Intel Corporation

Stockholder Proposal of Holy Land Principles, Inc.

Securities Exchange Act of 1934—Rule 14a-8

Ladies and Gentlemen:

This letter is to inform you that Intel Corporation (the “Company”) intends to omit

from its proxy statement and form of proxy for its 2017 Annual Stockholders’ Meeting

(collectively, the “2017 Proxy Materials”) a stockholder proposal (the “Proposal”) and

statement in support thereof received from Holy Land Principles, Inc. (the “Proponent”).

Pursuant to Rule 14a-8(j), we:

•

have filed this letter with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the

“Commission”) no later than eighty (80) calendar days before the date the

Company expects to file its definitive 2017 Proxy Materials with the

Commission; and

•

are sending copies of this correspondence to the Proponent.

Rule 14a-8(k) and Staff Legal Bulletin No. 14D (Nov. 7, 2008) (“SLB 14D”) provide

that stockholder proponents are required to send companies a copy of any correspondence

that the proponents elect to submit to the Commission or the staff of the Division of

Corporation Finance (the “Staff”). Accordingly, we are taking this opportunity to inform the

Proponent that if the Proponent elects to submit additional correspondence to the

Commission or the Staff with respect to the Proposal, a copy of that correspondence should

be furnished concurrently to the undersigned on behalf of the Company pursuant to

Rule 14a-8(k) and SLB 14D.

Office of Chief Counsel

Division of Corporation Finance

January 13, 2017

Page 2

THE PROPOSAL

The Proposal states:

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the shareholders request Intel to

prepare a report within four months of the annual meeting, at reasonable cost

and omitting proprietary information, covering the following: A chart of

employees in Palestine-Israel identifying the number who are Arab and non-

Arab broken down by the nine EEO-1 job categories for each of the past three

years.

A copy of the Proposal, as well as related correspondence with the Proponent, is

attached to this letter as Exhibit A.

BASIS FOR EXCLUSION

We hereby respectfully request that the Staff concur in our view that the Proposal

may be excluded from the 2017 Proxy Materials pursuant to Rule 14a-8(i)(12)(ii) because

the Proposal deals with substantially the same subject matter as two previously submitted

stockholder proposals that were included in the Company’s 2016 and 2015 proxy materials

(the “Previous Proposals”), and the more recently submitted of those proposals did not

receive the support necessary for resubmission. As discussed below, the Staff has focused on

the “substantive concerns” raised by the proposals rather than on the specific language or

corporate action proposed to be taken in determining whether a proposal may be excludable

pursuant to Rule 14a-8(i)(12). Therefore, consistent with this standard, even though the

Proposal requests different specific actions than those contemplated by the Previous

Proposals, the Proposal is excludable because it shares the previous proposals’ focus on

improving Palestine-Israel relations by addressing fair employment practices in the area.

ANALYSIS

The Proposal May Be Excluded Under Rule 14a-8(i)(12)(ii) Because It Deals With

Substantially The Same Subject Matter As Two Previously Submitted Proposals, And

The More Recently Submitted Of Those Proposals Did Not Receive The Support

Necessary For Resubmission.

Under Rule 14a-8(i)(12)(ii), a stockholder proposal dealing with “substantially the

same subject matter as another proposal or proposals that has or have been previously

included in the company’s proxy materials within the preceding 5 calendar years” may be

excluded from the proxy materials “for any meeting held within 3 calendar years of the last

time it was included if the proposal received . . . [l]ess than 6% of the vote on its last

Office of Chief Counsel

Division of Corporation Finance

January 13, 2017

Page 3

submission to shareholders if proposed twice previously within the preceding 5 calendar

years.”

Overview Of Rule 14a-8(i)(12).

The Commission has indicated that the condition in Rule 14a-8(i)(12) that the

stockholder proposals deal with “substantially the same subject matter” does not mean that

the previous proposal(s) and the current proposal must be exactly the same. Although the

predecessor to Rule 14a-8(i)(12) required a proposal to be “substantially the same proposal”

as prior proposals, the Commission amended this rule in 1983 to permit exclusion of a

proposal that “deals with substantially the same subject matter.” The Commission explained

that this revision to the standard applied under the rule responded to commenters who viewed

it as:

[A]n appropriate response to counter the abuse of the security holder proposal

process by certain proponents who make minor changes in proposals each

year so that they can keep raising the same issue despite the fact that other

shareholders have indicated by their votes that they are not interested in that

issue.

Exchange Act Release No. 20091 (Aug. 16, 1983).

See also Exxon Mobil Corp.

(avail. Mar. 23, 2012) (concurring that a

proposal requesting a comprehensive policy on water addressed substantially the same

subject matter as three other proposals, one of which requested that the board issue a report

on issues relating to land, water and soil);

Dow Jones & Co., Inc

. (avail. Dec. 17, 2004)

(concurring that a proposal requesting that the company publish information relating to its

process for donations to a particular non-profit organization was excludable as it dealt with

substantially the same subject matter as a prior proposal requesting an explanation of the

procedures governing all charitable donations);

General Motors Corp.

(avail. Mar. 18, 1999)

(concurring that a proposal regarding goods or services that utilize slave or forced labor in

China was excludable because it dealt with the same subject matter as previous proposals

that would have applied to the Soviet Union as well as China).

Office of Chief Counsel

Division of Corporation Finance

January 13, 2017

Page 6

The Proposal Deals With Substantially The Same Subject Matter As Two

Proposals That Were Previously Included In The Company’s Proxy Materials

Within The Preceding Five Calendar Years.

The Company included the Previous Proposals in its proxy materials within the past

five years.

•

In its 2016 proxy materials, filed with the SEC on April 4, 2016 (the “2016

Proposal,” attached as Exhibit B), the Company included a stockholder proposal

from the Proponent describing in its resolved clauses a series of principles

relating to equal opportunity employment for corporations doing business in

Palestine-Israel (the “Holy Land Principles”) and requesting that the Company’s

Board of Directors “[m]ake all possible lawful efforts to implement and/or

increase activity on each of the eight Holy Land Principles.”

•

In its 2015 proxy materials, filed with the SEC on April 2, 2015 (the “2015

Proposal,” attached as Exhibit C), the Company included a stockholder proposal

from John Harrington that was identical to the 2016 Proposal.

The Proposal, in raising concern over the Company’s employment practices in the

Palestine-Israel region, deals with substantially the same subject matter as the Previous

Proposals. Although the Proposal is phrased differently from the Previous Proposals, the

express language of the Proposal and the Previous Proposals as well as their supporting

statements demonstrate that they address the same substantive concern. For example:

•

The recitals in the Proposal and the Previous Proposals each identify the same

substantive concern of focusing on fair employment practices as a means to address the

Proponent’s concerns over Israeli-Palestinian relations.

Proposal

2016 Proposal

2015 Proposal

The Proposal’s supporting

statement notes that “

achieving a

lasting peace in the Holy Land—

with security for Israel and

justice for Palestinians

—requires

fairness in all aspects of society,”

adding, “we believe it is possible

at this time to achieve greater

fairness in employment

practices

.”

The 2016 Proposal’s supporting

statement notes that “

achieving a

lasting peace in the Holy Land—

with security for Israel and

justice for Palestinians

—

encourages us to a promote a

means for establishing justice and

equality,” and immediately

follows that statement by adding

that “

fair employment

should be

the hallmark of any American

company at home or abroad and is

a requisite for any just society.”

The 2015 Proposal’s supporting

statement notes that “

achieving a

lasting peace in the Holy Land—

with security for Israel and

justice for Palestinians

—

encourages us to a promote a

means for establishing justice and

equality,” and immediately

follows that statement by adding

that “

fair employment

should be

the hallmark of any American

company at home or abroad and is

a requisite for any just society.”

Office of Chief Counsel

Division of Corporation Finance

January 13, 2017

Page 7

•

The resolved clause of the Proposal and the Previous Proposals each request that the

Company report on its fair employment practices, including on the racial and ethnic

diversity of employees in Palestine-Israel.

Proposal

2016 Proposal

2015 Proposal

The resolved clause of the

Proposal requests that the

Company issue a report on

its Palestine-Israel

employees, thereby

“

identifying the number

who are Arab and non-

Arab

broken down by the

nine EEO-1 job categories

for each of the past three

years.”

The 2016 Proposal lists out

the Holy Land Principles,

which include “

identify[ing]

underrepresented employee

group

” and “

publicly

report[ing] on their

progress in implementing

the Holy Land Principles

.”

The 2015 Proposal lists out

the Holy Land Principles,

which include “

identify[ing]

underrepresented employee

groups

” and “

publicly

report[ing] on their

progress in implementing

the Holy Land Principles

.”

•

Each supporting statement in the Proposal and the Previous Proposals reiterates that

taking the requested actions will reflect the Company’s commitment to equal

employment opportunities.

Proposal

2016 Proposal

2015 Proposal

The supporting statement of the

Proposal asserts that publishing

the requested report will

“

demonstrate that Intel practices

fair employment in the Holy

Land

.”

The supporting statement of the

2016 Proposal asserts that taking

the requested actions will

“

demonstrate concern for . . .

equality of opportunity in its

international operations

.”

The supporting statement of the

2015 Proposal asserts that taking

the requested actions will

“demonstrate concern for . . .

equality of opportunity in its

international operations

.”

•

Each supporting statement in the Proposal and the Previous Proposals reiterates that

taking the requested actions will reflect the Company’s commitment to human rights.

Proposal

2016 Proposal

2015 Proposal

The supporting statement of the

Proposal asserts that publishing

the requested report will help

achieve “

fairness in all aspects of

society

.”

The supporting statement of the

2016 Proposal asserts that taking

the requested actions will

“

demonstrate concern for human

rights

.”

The supporting statement of the

2015 Proposal asserts that taking

the requested actions will

“demonstrate concern for human

rights

.”

As illustrated above, although the Proposal has a more limited scope than the

Previous Proposals, it asks for the same type of report as the Previous Proposals and

Office of Chief Counsel

Division of Corporation Finance

January 13, 2017

Page 8

addresses the same substantive concerns as the Previous Proposals, because each of the

proposals describes employment initiatives that the proponents believe the Company should

undertake in order to address equal workplace opportunities for Israeli and Palestinian

employees and to promote peaceable relations in the region.

Moreover, even where proposals request reports or other proposed actions that differ

in their precise terms and scope, this does not preclude no-action relief under

Rule 14a-8(i)(12). As demonstrated by the

Exxon Mobil Corp.

(avail. Mar. 23, 2012),

Dow

Jones & Co., Inc

. (avail. Dec. 17, 2004), and

General Motors Corp.

(avail. Mar. 18, 1999)

precedents discussed above, although the specific language in the Previous Proposals and the

Proposal may differ, each proposal addresses the same substantive concern—reporting to

stockholders on the Company’s employment practices in the Palestine-Israel region as a

means to address conflict in the region. Accordingly, the Proposal represents exactly the

type of minor, cosmetic changes from the Previous Proposals that Rule 14a-8(i)(12) is

intended to address.

The existence of a common substantive concern being addressed in both the Proposal

and the Previous Proposals distinguish them from instances where the Staff declined to grant

no-action relief under Rule 14a-8(i)(12) because the actions and concerns addressed in past

proposals reflected different substantive concerns. For example, in

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

(avail. Apr. 3, 2002), the Staff considered a proposal requesting that the company produce a

report identifying employees by sex and race across the nine EEO-1 job categories, a

summary of affirmative action policies and programs to improve performance, a summary of

policies and programs aimed at increasing the number of female and minority managers, and

a description of the company’s efforts to publicize its affirmative action policies and

programs to its merchandise suppliers and service providers. The Staff did not concur that

the proposal addressed the same substantive concern as proposals submitted in 1999 and

2000, which focused on diversity issues at the senior executive level. In the 1999 and 2000

proposals, the whereas clauses focused exclusively on the publication of the Glass Ceiling

Initiative Report and the lack of diversity in senior-level management and executive

positions, stating specifically that “top management positions should more closely reflect the

people in the workforce and marketplace if our company is going to remain competitive.”

The 1999 and 2000 proposals requested that the company publish employment statistics

relating to “the top one hundred or one percent of company wage earners,” and asked the

company to report on its plans to address the Glass Ceiling Commission Report through its

executive compensation, executive performance evaluation and other management programs

and policies.

The facts of the

Wal-Mart

precedents are distinguishable from those in the instant

case because the

Wal-Mart

proposals involved disparate employment issues. In

Wal-Mart

the 1999 and 2000 proposals focused on company efforts to increase diversity at the

Office of Chief Counsel

Division of Corporation Finance

January 13, 2017

Page 9

executive level, requesting reports on employment statistics at such level and discussion of

the company’s efforts to increase diversity through initiatives mainly focused on executive

compensation, executive performance evaluations, mentorship and other opportunities for

advancement up the corporate ladder. However, the proposal the company sought to exclude

focused on the company’s efforts to increase diversity at all employment levels, thus

requesting a broader set of employment statistics, a more general discussion of policies

aimed at improving job performance and increasing diversity among managers, as well as a

discussion of how the company publicizes such efforts to third-party suppliers.

In contrast,

the Proposal and the Previous Proposals all address the same substantive concern, requesting

that the Company issue a report addressing its employment practices in Israel as a means to

address Palestinian and Israeli relations. Therefore, we believe that the Proposal may be

excluded pursuant to Rule 14a-8(i)(12)(ii).

Likewise, in other situations where proposals addressed similar issues but reflected

different substantive concerns, the Staff has declined to concur that proposals dealt with

substantially the same subject matter for purposes of Rule 14a-8(i)(12).

See, Chevron

Corp.

(avail. Feb. 29, 2000) (declining to concur in the exclusion of a proposal in light of

the fact that “while the prior two proposals concerned substantially the same subject

matter, the company’s oil and gas drilling operations in the Arctic National Wildlife

Refuge, the present proposal requests an environmental impact study on the results of

such operations rather than their immediate cessation”);

Loews Corp. (Christian Brothers

Investment Services, Inc.)

(avail. Feb. 22, 1999) (declining to concur in the exclusion of a

proposal requesting that the company tie executive compensation to success in reducing

teen consumption of company tobacco products, because a prior proposal requested the

company to implement Food and Drug Administration regulations to reduce teen

smoking without linking such efforts to executive compensation);

Chevron Corp.

(avail.

Feb. 11, 1998) (declining to concur in the exclusion of a proposal requesting that the

company implement a policy for disclosing amounts of toxic chemical compounds

released from the company’s refineries, the sources of such compounds, and methods for

reducing their release, given that two prior proposals requested public access to facility

information that would allow assessment of such facilities’ environmental and safety

hazards and related company policies, and that would also permit inspection of such

facilities);

American Brands, Inc.

(avail. Jan. 6, 1995) (declining to concur in the

exclusion of a proposal requesting that the company spin-off its tobacco business, as two

prior proposals relating to tobacco use requested the Company to stop producing and

marketing tobacco products altogether).

Office of Chief Counsel

Division of Corporation Finance

January 13, 2017

Page 10

The Stockholder Proposal Included In The Company’s 2016 Proxy Materials

Did Not Receive The Stockholder Support Necessary To Permit Resubmission.

In addition to requiring that the proposals address the same substantive concern,

Rule 14a-8(i)(12) sets thresholds with respect to the percentage of stockholder votes cast in

favor of the last proposal submitted and included in the Company’s proxy materials. As

evidenced in the Company’s Form 8-K filed on May 24, 2016, which states the voting results

for the Company’s 2016 Annual Stockholders’ Meeting and is attached as Exhibit D, the

2016 Proposal received 3.89% of the votes cast at the Company’s 2016 Annual

Stockholders’ Meeting.

Thus, the vote on the 2016 Proposal failed to achieve the 6%

threshold specified in Rule 14a-8(i)(12)(ii) at the 2016 Annual Meeting.

For the foregoing reasons, the Company may exclude the Proposal from its 2017

Proxy Materials under Rule 14a-8(i)(12)(ii).

CONCLUSION

Based upon the foregoing analysis, we respectfully request that the Staff concur that

it will take no action if the Company excludes the Proposal from its 2017 Proxy Materials.

We would be happy to provide you with any additional information and answer any

questions that you may have regarding this subject. Correspondence regarding this letter

should be sent to shareholderproposals@gibsondunn.com. If we can be of any further

assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate to call me at (202) 955-8671 or Irving S.

Gomez, the Company’s Senior Counsel, Corporate Legal Group, at (408) 653-7868.

Sincerely,

Ronald O. Mueller

Enclosures

The 2016 Proposal received 2,551,699,762 “against” votes and 103,321,479 “for” votes.

Abstentions and broker non-votes were not included for purposes of this calculation.

See

Staff Legal Bulletin No. 14, Question F.4 (July 13, 2001).

Office of Chief Counsel

Division of Corporation Finance

January 13, 2017

Page 11

cc:

Irving S. Gomez, Intel Corporation

Fr. Sean McManus, Holy Land Principles, Inc.

Barbara J. Flaherty, Holy Land Principles, Inc.

EXHIBIT A

....

.....

~.,

...

.....

•I

1:...

-*-

·-~~

·~

~·

i,.

...

• +

"'I

...

•f

'¥···

'+•

•'

'.'

~.:

~''f"·

fl ..

·"·

...

....

:,,

...

Holy

Land

Principles

..;

....

·I'

I •

American principles following American investment

President, Fr. Sean Mc Manus • Executive Vice President, Barbara

Flaherty

•

'-~'j

Suzan

Martin

Corporate Secretary

Intel Corporation

MIS

RNB-4-

151

2200 Mission College Boulevard

Santa Clara, CA 95054-1549

Dear Ms. Martin,

~·

....

,,.

•

...

·":\

-·

.....

June 22, 2016

We are the two executive officers

Holy Land Principles, Inc. who are duly authorized to

....

•'

" .

act on its behalf. Holy Land Principles, Inc. owns over $2000 worth

Intel Corporation shares

that were purchased January 13, 2014, and have been continuously owned.

We are informing Intel Corporation that we will offer the enclosed Shareholder

Resolution on behalf

Holy Land Principles, Inc. for consideration

stockholders at the

201

7 Annual General Meeting.

. .

...

""'"

....

...

.,f

·'

•

· .

·~""

Ill

•

••

,..

We submit the enclosed Resolution to you in accordance with rule 14a-8

the Securities

.i'

....

.-~

Exchange Act

1934 and ask that it be included in your proxy statement.

"·.'

A letter from Wells Fargo, the custodial bank, verifying Holy Land Principles, Inc.'s continual

.,.

. ,

ownership

over $2000 worth

Intel Corporation shares from January 13, 2014 will follow.

Holy Land Principles, Inc. will continue to hold at least $2000 worth

these Intel Corporation

shares through the date

the 2017 Annual General Meeting.

...

We would be happy to discuss this initiative with you. Should Intel Corporation decide to

implement this Proposal, we will withdraw it.

Please feel free to contact us at 202-488-0107

you have questions on this matter.

rz.

';.

....

........

Sincerely,

{tz,~WI~

Fr. Sean Mc Manus

I •

Barbara J. Flaherty

Executive Vice President

Holy Land Principles, Inc.

-1f

President

Holy Land Principles, Inc.

,..

.•.

•

'I>·

...

.,.

-·

~·

.,,

Enclosures (1)

r~.

,.,....

~.:

~·~.

•I

•Capitol Hill• P.O. Box 15128, Washington, D.C. 20003-0849•Tel: (202) 488-0107

Fax: (202) 488-7537° Email:

Sean@HolyLandPrin~iples.org

Barbara@HolyLandPrinciples.org

Website: www.HolyLandPrinciples.org

'If'

""'"'

•1

"•

I•

• I •

...,._

BREAKDOWN OF INTEL'S WORKFORCE IN ISRAEL-PALESTINE

(Holy Land Principles Inc.'s Proposal)

WHEREAS, Intel Corporation has operations in Israel-Palestine;

WHEREAS, achieving a lasting peace in the Holy Land-

with security for Israel and justice for

Palestinians-

requires fairness in all aspects

society;

WHEREAS, although not all aspects

fairness can be immediately achieved in the current

circumstances, we believe that it is possible at this time to achieve greater fairness in

employment practices;

We believe that it is desirable for Intel to disclose the breakdown

its workforce there using the

nine

job

categories which are utilized in the U.S. Department

Labor's EE0-1 Report (Equal

Employment Opportunity):

Officials and managers;

Professionals;

Technicians;

Sales;

Office and clerical;

Craft Workers (skilled);

Operatives (semiskilled);

Laborers (unskilled);

Service workers.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED

that the shareholders request Intel to prepare a report

within four months

the annual meeting, at reasonable cost and omitting proprietary

information, covering the following: A chart

employees in Palestine-Israel identifying the

number who are Arab and non-Arab broken down by the nine EE0-1

job

categories for each

the past three years.

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

The proponent believes that Intel Corporation benefits by disclosing the requested breakdown

its workforce to demonstrate that Intel practices fair employment in the Holy Land.

Please vote your proxy

FOR

these concerns.

HOLY

LAND

PRINCIPLES,

INC.

American Principles

Following

American Companies

President

Fr. Sean

Manus

Executive Vice

President

Barbara

Flaherty

Ms. Suzan

Miller

Corporate Secretary

Intel Corporation

MIS

RNB-4-151

2200 Mission College Blvd.

Santa Clara, CA 95054-1549

July

2016

Dear Ms. Miller,

We have included the Wells Fargo verification

assets letter to complete the required

documents for the filing

Holy Land Principles, Inc.' s Intel Corporation.

Please acknowledge receipt

this letter.

Respectfully,

Barbara J. Flaherty

P.O.

x 15128, Washington, D.

20003-084

•Tel: (202) 488-0107

Fax:

(202) 488-7537 • Email: Sean@HolyLandPrinciples.org

Barbara@HolyLandPrinciples.org

Website: wW-w.HolyLandPrinciples.org

June 29, 2016

Holy Land Principles, Incorporated

Attn: Sean McManus

608

" Street Southwest

Washington,

20024-3102

Dear Mr. McManus:

Wealth Brokerage Services

MAC

OOS-035

One

ort

h Jefferson Avenue

Saint Louis, MO

writing

response to your request regarding y

our

investment

account,

number

ending

Please see below

the

cost basis for

the

pertinent

stock in question that is heid in the above-mentioned

account:

Number

Description

Purchase Date

Original Cost

Current Value as

Basis

the

Business

June

28, 2016

387

Intel Corporation

201

s9,978.91

s12,070.51

Also, please note

that

the

above-mentioned stock has been continuously

held

the

account from

the

time

purchase to date. If you have

any

questions or concerns, please feel free to contact

our

Client

Services Team. You can reach one

our

specialists

800-359-9297, weekdays from 8 a.m. to

p.m.

and

Saturdays from 8 a.

to 5 p.

m.,

ET.

Phalanda McMath

Field Services -

inquiries

Investment and Insurance Products:

•Not

FDIC Insured

•NO

Bank Guarantee

•

May

Lose

Value

Wells Fargo Advisors,

LLC,

Member

FINRA/SIPC,

a registered broker-dealer

and a separate

non-bank

affiliate

Wells Fargo

Company. Insurance

products

are offered

through

our

affiliated

non-bank

insurance agencies.

***FISMA & OMB Memorandum M-07-16***

EXHIBIT B

Table of Contents

STOCKHOLDER PROPOSALS

The following stockholder proposals will be voted on at the 2016 Annual Stockholders’ Meeting if properly presented by or

on behalf of the stockholder proponent.

Proposal 4: Implementing Principles Entitled “Holy Land Principles”

The following stockholder proposal will be voted on at the 2016 Annual Stockholders’ Meeting if properly presented by or on

behalf of the stockholder proponent.

Holy Land Principles, Inc., Capitol Hill, P.O. Box 15128, Washington, D.C. 20003, is the owner of 387 shares of Intel

common stock and proposes the following resolution:

HOLY LAND PRINCIPLES INTEL RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, Intel Corporation has operations in Palestine-Israel;

WHEREAS, achieving a lasting peace in the Holy Land—with security for Israel and justice for

Palestinians—encourages us to promote a means for establishing justice and equality;

WHEREAS, fair employment should be the hallmark of any American company at home or abroad and is a

requisite for any just society;

WHEREAS, Holy Land Principles Inc., a non-profit organization, has proposed a set of equal opportunity

employment principles to serve as guidelines for corporations in Palestine-Israel.

These are:

1. Adhere to equal and fair employment practices in hiring, compensation, training, professional education,

advancement and governance without discrimination based on national, racial, ethnic or religious identity.

2. Identify underrepresented employee groups and initiate active recruitment efforts to increase the number of

underrepresented employees.

3. Develop training programs that will prepare substantial numbers of current minority employees for skilled

jobs, including the expansion of existing programs and the creation of new programs to train, upgrade, and

improve the skills of minority employees.

4. Maintain a work environment that is respectful of all national, racial, ethnic and religious groups.

5. Ensure that layoff, recall and termination procedures do not favor a particular national, racial, ethnic or

religious group.

6. Not make military service a precondition or qualification for employment for any position, other than those

positions that specifically require such experience, for the fulfillment of an employee’s particular responsibilities.

7. Not accept subsidies, tax incentives or other benefits that lead to the direct advantage of one national, racial,

ethnic or religious group over another.

8. Appoint staff to monitor, oversee, set timetables, and publicly report on their progress in implementing the

Holy Land Principles.

RESOLVED

: Shareholders request the Board of Directors to:

Make all possible lawful efforts to implement and/or increase activity on each of the eight Holy Land Principles.

2016 PROXY STATEMENT

Page 77 of 94

DEF 14A

1/13/2017

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/50863/000119312516528154/d286791ddef14a.h...

Table of Contents

STOCKHOLDER PROPOSALS



Proposal 4: Implementing “Holy Land Principles”

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

The proponent believes that Intel Corporation benefits by hiring from the widest available talent pool. An

employee’s ability to do the job should be the primary consideration in hiring and promotion decisions.

Implementation of the Holy Land Principles—which are both pro-Jewish and pro-Palestinian—will demonstrate

concern for human rights and equality of opportunity in its international operations.

Please vote your proxy

FOR

these concerns.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ RESPONSE

The Board of Directors recommends that you vote “Against” this proposal because our company-wide policies already

address the proposal’s concerns, and the specialized reporting requested under the proposal is not needed. Diversity and

inclusion are integral parts of Intel’s competitive strategy and vision. Intel provides equal employment opportunity for all

applicants and employees without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age, disability, medical

condition, genetic information, military and veteran status, marital status, pregnancy, gender, gender expression, gender

identity, and sexual orientation. We strive to continuously advance a work environment that honors, values and respects all

of our employees and future employees. Our strong commitment to respecting the rights of individuals and communities

can be found in corporate policies, including our corporate values, our Code of Conduct policy and our Human Rights

Principles. Our policies are based on leading frameworks and input from stakeholders, are publicly available on our web

sites and applied wherever we operate in the world, including but not limited to Israel, Costa Rica, India, Ireland, Malaysia,

the People’s Republic of China, the United States, and Vietnam. We have systems in place to monitor our compliance with

those policies. Each year, we publicly report on our performance in our Corporate Responsibility Report, which is based on

the internationally-recognized Global Reporting Initiative standard of corporate responsibility reporting. Our practices in this

regard are integral to Intel and its operations across all geographies where we operate. As we believe that our current

practice and operations meet and exceed the intent of the Holy Land Principles, it is neither necessary nor useful to have a

separate set of employment-opportunity “Principles” for one particular locale. In addition, the proposal’s required reporting

and auditing adds an unnecessary and inappropriate burden that is not in the best interest of our stockholders. We believe

that our record is strong in corporate responsibility matters, including diversity and inclusion, as discussed below.

SUPPORTING DISCUSSION

Intel has a history of and a continued commitment to being a leader in corporate responsibility. Over the years, corporate

responsibility has been integrated into the fabric of the company, and as such, it is embedded in Intel’s values, strategic

objectives, governance, staff and line functions, compensation systems and Board oversight.

We have policies and processes in place to affirm our long-standing commitment to the principles of equal employment

opportunity, non-discrimination, and diversity throughout our global operations, including our operations in Israel. These

policies, including our formal Code of Conduct and our Human Rights Principles, are publicly available on our web site at

www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/corporate-responsibility/governance-and-ethics.html

. Our commitment to corporate

responsibility and transparency is further highlighted in our annual Corporate Responsibility Report, which is available at

www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/corporate-responsibility/corporate-responsibility-report-overview.html.

Our

policies,

practices, and disclosures reflect and embody widely adopted standards included in the UN Global Compact, the UN

Declaration of Human Rights, the Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights, core International Labour

Organization Conventions, and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Guidelines for Multinational

Enterprises.

Page 78 of 94

DEF 14A

1/13/2017

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/50863/000119312516528154/d286791ddef14a.h...

Table of Contents

STOCKHOLDER PROPOSALS



Proposal 4: Implementing “Holy Land Principles”

Our Code of Conduct includes the following principles:

We value diversity in our workforce, as well as in our customers, suppliers, and others. We provide equal

employment opportunity for all applicants and employees. We do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion,

sex, national origin, ancestry, age, disability, medical condition, genetic information, military and veteran status,

marital status, pregnancy, gender, gender expression, gender identity, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic

protected by local law, regulation, or ordinance.

We follow these principles in all areas of employment including recruitment, hiring, training, promotion, compensation,

benefits, transfer, and social and recreational programs. These principles are also reflected in our Human Rights Principles,

where we also affirm our commitment to “maintaining and improving systems and processes to avoid complicity in human

right violations [including violations relating to discrimination] related to our own operations, our supply chain, and our

products.” In addition to our own operations, we expect our suppliers to maintain policies and practices with respect to

equal employment opportunity, non-discrimination, and diversity that meet our own Code of Conduct.

As part of our commitment to responsible business practices, Intel takes steps to proactively follow these principles and

values. For example, we have committed $300 million to reaching full representation of underrepresented minorities and

women in our technical workforce in the United States and have encouraged other technology companies to join us in our

efforts. We have taken a similar proactive position in urging our industry to remove “conflict minerals” from our products; we

set a significant goal to produce conflict free microprocessors by 2014 and we achieved the goal. We are similarly

committed to execution on our principles and values in our operations in Israel. We have Palestinians working throughout

our Israel operations in both direct labor and supervisory roles, and our Israel human resource group maintains active

recruiting efforts seeking Arab candidates by advertising in Arabic language and in Arabic newspapers and targeted media.

Intel was among the first companies to join Maantech (“Maan” means “together” in Arabic), which was established in 2011

as a national collaboration of the Israeli high tech industry with the goal of increasing the number of Arab engineers in the

industry. For more information, visit

maantech.org.il/?lang=en.

Our efforts have been recognized outside of the U.S. In

2014, our Israel operations have been voted one of the best companies to work for in Israel by BDICoFace

(www.bdicode.co.il/Rank_ENG/33_0_0/Best%20Companies%20to%20Work%20for)

addition,

our

Israeli-based

educational and community outreach programs include efforts to support Palestinians and Israeli Arabs in acquiring the

skills necessary to prosper in an innovation economy. For example, in partnership with the Youth Development Resource

Centers, our Intel

Learn program and the Intel

Computer Clubhouse have helped build the skills and capabilities of young

Palestinians. We also have an extensive program supporting employee volunteer work. In 2014, one of our Arab

employees from our Israeli design center was one of ten employees worldwide recognized as an “Intel Volunteer Hero”.

Given the strength of our existing policies and commitments, the breadth of our Code of Conduct and Human Rights

Principles, and our initiatives to ensure equal employment and non-discrimination of all persons throughout our global

operations, including in our Israel operations, we believe that our standards and actions fully satisfy the proposal’s objective

to “demonstrate [our] concern for human rights and equality of opportunity in [our] international operations.” The part of this

proposal requesting that Intel “[a]ppoint staff to monitor, oversee, set timetables, and publicly report on their progress in

implementing the Holy Land Principles” suggests that we have additional steps to take to fulfill the objectives of this

proposal, which we believe is not the case. Our existing policies and commitments ensure that we have the management

structure to provide proper implementation and oversight of our policies that promote the principles of equal employment

opportunity, non-discrimination, and diversity in our global operations. However, as noted above, we achieve transparency

on our performance through our annual Corporate Responsibility Report and other actions publicly reporting on our

employment and other activity.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD

The Board of Directors recommends that you vote

“AGAINST”

this proposal for Intel to implement, or increase activity

concerning, the Holy Land Principles.

2016 PROXY STATEMENT

Page 79 of 94

DEF 14A

1/13/2017

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/50863/000119312516528154/d286791ddef14a.h...

EXHIBIT C

Table of Contents

STOCKHOLDER PROPOSALS

The following stockholder proposals will be voted on at the 2015 Annual Stockholders’ Meeting if properly presented by or

on behalf of the stockholder proponent.

Proposal 6: Holy Land Principles

The following stockholder proposal will be voted on at the 2015 Annual Stockholders’ Meeting if properly presented by or on

behalf of the stockholder proponent.

John Harrington, 1001 2

Street, Suite 325, Napa, California 94559, is the owner of 500 shares of Intel common stock and

proposes the following resolution:

PALESTINE-ISRAEL—HOLY LAND PRINCIPLES

WHEREAS, Intel Corporation has operations in Palestine-Israel;

WHEREAS, achieving a lasting peace in the Holy Land—with security for Israel and justice for Palestinians—encourages

us to promote a means for establishing justice and equality;

WHEREAS, fair employment should be the hallmark of any American company at home or abroad and is a requisite for any

just society;

WHEREAS, Holy Land Principles Inc., a non-profit organization, has proposed a set of equal opportunity employment

principles to serve as guidelines for corporations in Palestine-Israel.

These are:

1. Adhere to equal and fair employment practices in hiring, compensation, training, professional education, advancement

and governance without discrimination based on national, racial, ethnic or religious identity.

2. Identify underrepresented employee groups and initiate active recruitment efforts to increase the number of

underrepresented employees.

3. Develop training programs that will prepare substantial numbers of current minority employees for skilled jobs, including

the expansion of existing programs and the creation of new programs to train, upgrade, and improve the skills of minority

employees.

4. Maintain a work environment that is respectful of all national, racial, ethnic and religious groups.

5. Ensure that layoff, recall and termination procedures do not favor a particular national, racial, ethnic or religious group.

6. Not make military service a precondition or qualification for employment for any position, other than those positions that

specifically require such experience, for the fulfillment of an employee’s particular responsibilities.

7. Not accept subsidies, tax incentives or other benefits that lead to the direct advantage of one national, racial, ethnic or

religious group over another.

8. Appoint staff to monitor, oversee, set timetables, and publicly report on their progress in implementing the Holy Land

Principles.

RESOLVED

: Shareholders request the Board of Directors to:

Make all possible lawful efforts to implement and/or increase activity on each of the eight Holy Land Principles.

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

The proponent believes that Intel Corporation benefits by hiring from the widest available talent pool. An employee’s ability

to do the job should be the primary consideration in hiring and promotion decisions.

Implementation of the Holy Land Principles—which are both pro-Jewish and pro-Palestinian—will demonstrate concern

for human rights and equality of opportunity in its international operations.

Please vote your proxy

FOR

these concerns

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD

Page 97 of 140

Definitive Proxy Statement

1/13/2017

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/50863/000119312515116412/d888992ddef14a.h...

The Board of Directors recommends that you vote

“AGAINST”

this proposal for Intel to implement or increase activity

concerning the Holy Land Principles.

2015 PROXY STATEMENT

Page 98 of 140

Definitive Proxy Statement

1/13/2017

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/50863/000119312515116412/d888992ddef14a.h...

Table of Contents

STOCKHOLDER PROPOSALS



Proposal 6: Holy Land Principles

BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ RESPONSE

Diversity and inclusion are an integral part of Intel’s competitive strategy and vision. Intel provides equal employment

opportunity for all applicants and employees without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age,

disability, medical condition, military and veteran status, marital status, gender and sexual orientation. We strive to

continuously advance a work environment that honors, values and respects all of our employees and future employees.

Our strong commitment to respecting the rights of individuals and communities can be found in corporate policies, including

our corporate values, our Code of Conduct policy and our Human Rights Principles. Our policies are based on leading

frameworks and input from stakeholders, are publicly available on our websites and are applied wherever we operate in the

world, including but not limited to Israel, Ireland, Malaysia, Vietnam, Costa Rica, the People’s Republic of China, India and

the United States. We have systems in place to ensure that we are compliant with those policies and each year we publicly

report on our performance in our Corporate Responsibility Report, which is based on the internationally-recognized Global

Reporting Initiative standard of corporate responsibility reporting. Our practices in this regard are core to Intel and

integrated across the company and in all geographies where we operate. We believe that we meet and exceed the intent of

the Holy Land Principles, and that it is neither necessary nor useful to have a separate set of employment-opportunity

“Principles” for one particular locale. The proposal’s required reporting and auditing also adds an unnecessary and

inappropriate burden that is not necessary, not required in any other location and not in the best interest of our

stockholders.

SUPPORTING DISCUSSION

Intel has a history of and a continued commitment to being a leader in corporate responsibility. Over the years, corporate

responsibility has been integrated into the fabric of the company, and as such, it is embedded in our values, strategic

objectives, governance, staff and line functions, compensation systems and Board oversight.

We have policies and processes in place to affirm our long-standing commitment to the principles of equal employment

opportunity, non-discrimination, and diversity throughout our global operations, including our operations in Israel. These

policies, including our formal Code of Conduct and our Human Rights Principles, are publicly available on our website at

www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/corporate-responsibility/governance-and-ethics.html

. Our commitment to corporate

responsibility and transparency is further highlighted in our annual Corporate Responsibility Report, which is available at

www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/corporate-responsibility/corporate-responsibility-report-overview.html.

Our

policies,

practices, and disclosures reflect and embody widely adopted standards included in the UN Global Compact, the UN

Declaration of Human Rights, the Guiding Principles for Business and Human Rights, core International Labour

Organization Conventions, and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development Guidelines for Multinational

Enterprises.

Our Code of Conduct says:

We value diversity in our workforce, as well as in our customers, suppliers, and others. We provide equal employment

opportunity for all applicants and employees. We do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national

origin, ancestry, age, disability, medical condition, genetic information, military and veteran status, marital status,

pregnancy, gender, gender expression, gender identity, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic protected by local

law, regulation, or ordinance. . . .

We follow these principles in all areas of employment including recruitment, hiring, training, promotion, compensation,

benefits, transfer, and social and recreational programs.

These principles and values are also reflected in our Human Rights Principles, where we also affirm our commitment to

“maintaining and improving systems and processes to avoid complicity in human right violations [including violations

relating to discrimination] related to our own operations, our supply chain, and our products.” In addition to our own

operations, we expect that our suppliers will maintain policies and practices with respect to equal employment opportunity,

non-discrimination, and diversity that meet our own Code of Conduct.

Page 99 of 140

Definitive Proxy Statement

1/13/2017

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/50863/000119312515116412/d888992ddef14a.h...

Table of Contents

STOCKHOLDER PROPOSALS



Proposal 6: Holy Land Principles

As part of our commitment to responsible business practices, Intel takes steps to proactively follow these principles and

values. For example, Brian Krzanich, our CEO, recently announced Intel’s commitment to reach full representation of

underrepresented minorities in our technical workforce in the United States, committed $300 million to help us achieve that

result, and asked other technology companies to join us in our efforts. We took a similar proactive position in urging our

industry to remove “conflict minerals” from our products; we set a significant goal to produce conflict free microprocessors

by 2014 and we achieved the goal. We are similarly committed to execution on our principles and values in our operations

in Israel. We have Palestinians working throughout our Israel operations in both direct labor and supervisory roles, and our

Israel human resource group maintains active recruiting efforts seeking Arab candidates by advertising in Arabic language

and in Arabic newspapers and targeted media. Intel was among the first companies to join Maantech (“Maan” means

“together” in Arabic), which was established in 2011 as a national collaboration of the Israeli high tech industry with the goal

of increasing the number of Arab engineers in the industry. For more information, visit

maantech.org.il/?lang=en.

Our Israel operations have been voted one of the best companies to work for in Israel by BDICoFace

(www.bdicode.co.il/Rank_ENG/33_0_0/Best%20Companies%20to%20Work%20for)

, and we are considered the largest

high tech employer of Arabs by Israeli organizations such as Kav Mashve

(www.kavmashve.org.il/english/)

, Tsofen

(www.tsofen.org/?lang=en)

and Maantech. We recently celebrated our 40th anniversary in Israel, and Arab employees

(including officers) who have been with Intel for over 20 years participated in the event.

Similarly, our Israeli-based educational and community outreach programs include efforts to support Palestinians and

Israeli Arabs in acquiring the skills necessary to prosper in an innovation economy. For example, in partnership with the

Youth Development Resource Centers, our Intel

Learn program and the Intel

Computer Clubhouse help build the skills

and capabilities of young Palestinians. We also have an extensive program supporting employee volunteer work. And in

2014, one of our Arab employees from our Israeli design center was one of ten employees worldwide recognized as an

“Intel Volunteer Hero”.

Given the strength of our existing policies and commitments, the breadth of our Code of Conduct and Human Rights

Principles, and our initiatives to ensure equal employment and non-discrimination of all persons throughout our global

operations, including in our Israel operations, we believe that our standards and actions fully satisfy the proposal’s objective

to “demonstrate [our] concern for human rights and equality of opportunity in [our] international operations.” The part of this

proposal requesting that Intel “appoint staff to monitor, oversee, set timetables, and publicly report on their progress in

implementing the Holy Land Principles” suggests that we have additional steps to take to fulfill the objectives of this

proposal, which we believe is not the case. Our existing policies and commitments ensure that we have the management

structure to provide proper implementation and oversight of our policies that promote the principles of equal employment

opportunity, non-discrimination, and diversity in our global operations. However, as noted above, we achieve transparency

on our performance through our annual Corporate Responsibility Report and other actions publicly reporting on our

employment and other activity.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD

The Board of Directors recommends that you vote

“AGAINST”

this proposal for Intel to implement, or increase activity

concerning, the Holy Land Principles.

2015 PROXY STATEMENT

Page 100 of 140

Definitive Proxy Statement

1/13/2017

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/50863/000119312515116412/d888992ddef14a.h...

EXHIBIT D

8-K 1 form8k.htm FORM 8-K

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

______________

FORM 8-K

______________

CURRENT REPORT

Pursuant to Section 13 OR 15(d) of The Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): May 19, 2016

______________

INTEL CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

______________

Delaware

000-06217

94-1672743

(State or other jurisdiction of

incorporation)

(Commission File Number)

(IRS Employer Identification No.)

2200 Mission College Blvd., Santa Clara, California 95054-1549

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)

(408) 765-8080

(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

(Former Name or Former Address, if Changed Since Last Report)

Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the

registrant under any of the following provisions (

see

General Instruction A.2. below):

☐

Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)

☐

Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)

☐

Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))

☐

Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))

Item 5.07.

Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders.

Intel's Annual Stockholders' Meeting was held on May 19, 2016. At the meeting:

stockholders elected the 10 persons recommended by the Board to serve as directors of Intel;

Page 1 of 3

1/13/2017

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/50863/000005086316000127/form8k.htm

stockholders ratified the selection of Ernst & Young LLP to serve as the independent registered public accounting

firm of Intel for 2016;

stockholders approved, on an advisory basis, Intel's executive compensation;

stockholders did not approve the stockholder proposal seeking the implementation of the principles entitled "Holy

Land Principles";

stockholders did not approve the stockholder proposal requesting that the Board take steps to allow stockholders to

act by written consent; and

stockholders did not approve the stockholder proposal requesting that the Board take steps to adopt an alternative

vote counting standard.

Set forth below, with respect to each such matter, are the number of votes cast for or against, the number of abstentions

and the number of broker non-votes.

1) Election of Directors

Nominee

For

Against

Abstain

Broker Non-Votes

Charlene Barshefsky

120

846,846

89,308

833

10,046,393

860

691,340

Aneel Bhusri

3,182

429

852

27,374

247

10,397

973

860

691,340

Andy D. Bryant

3,092

384

701

114

330,563

486

808

860

691,340

John J. Donahoe

3,171,063

877

552

406

585

789

860

691,340

Reed E. Hundt

138,459

299

198

398

544

375

860

691,340

Brian M. Krzanich

3,165,961,834

921,017

319

221

860

691,340

James D. Plummer

173,526,516

102,480

573

076

860

691,340

David S. Pottruck

122,090

438

642

202

10,469

432

860

691,340

Frank D. Yeary

180,807

,060

28,822,977

10,572,035

860

691,340

David B. Yoffie

3,101

561,332

108,529,930

10,110

810

860

691,340

2) Ratification of Selection of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

For

Against

Abstain

Broker Non-Votes

019

644,398

44,474,305

774

709

(0)

3) Advisory Vote to Approve Executive Compensation

For

Against

Abstain

Broker Non-Votes

086

256

754

117

271,206

674,112

860,691

340

4) Stockholder Proposal on Implementing Principles Entitled "Holy Land Principles"

For

Against

Abstain

Broker Non-Votes

103,321,479

2,551,699,

762

565,180,831

860,691,340

5) Stockholder Proposal on Allowing Stockholders to Act by Written Consent

Page 2 of 3

1/13/2017

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/50863/000005086316000127/form8k.htm

For

Against

Abstain

Broker Non-Votes

,374,229

152

1,821

798,085

24,174,835

860,691,340

6) Stockholder Proposal on Adopting an Alternative Vote Counting Standard

For

Against

Abstain

Broker Non-Votes

339,911,937

2,855

159,789

25,130,346

860,691,340

Item 8.01.

Other Events.

On May 18, 2016, Director John J. Donahoe was appointed to serve as independent Lead Director of the Board, effective

immediately, on the recommendation of the Board's Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee.

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to

be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

INTEL CORPORATION

(Registrant)

Date: May 24, 2016

By:

/s/ Suzan A. Miller

Suzan A. Miller

Vice President, Deputy General

Counsel and

Corporate Secretary

Page 3 of 3

1/13/2017

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/50863/000005086316000127/form8k.htm

Intel Proposal

Prompt to Clone This Intel Proposal

Apply this example's core structure, strategic pacing, and structural hierarchy directly to your own topic.

What are you generating today?