alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.51





April 22, 2011


EXTENSION N4 TO THE


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT OF AUGUST 1, 2004





By and between Siberian Energy Group Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), and David Zaikin (“Employee”) entered into this 22nd day of April, 2011, and made effective as of January 1, 2011.





WHEREASthe Company and the Employee previously signed the Employment Agreement, which stated the term of employment to start on August 1, 2004 and to end on December 31, 2008 (the “Agreement”, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A), and subsequent extensions for the year 2009 and 2010 till December 31, 2010;





AND WHEREAS the Company and the Employee wish to further extend the term of the employment agreement;





NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH, that the Company and the Employee agree as follows:





Point 4 “Term” of the employment Agreement to be revised and the term of the Agreement to be extended until December 31, 2011 (the “Extended Term”).





Point 5.1 “Compensation” of the employment Agreement to be revised and annual salary of the Employee to be stated as US$180,000.





Point 6 “Stock Option” of the employment Agreement is to be removed. A new Stock Option agreement will be entered into between the Company and the Employee upon the resolution of the Board of directors of the Company.





All other provisions of the Employment Agreement dated August 1, 2004 shall remain in full force and effect until the expiration of the Extended Term.





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this agreement to be executed the day and year first above written.








EMPLOYEE
COMPANY/s/ David Zaikin
/s/ Elena PochapskiDavid Zaikin
Elena Pochapski71 Woodchester Crt,
CFOThornhill, ON, L4J 7V6
Siberian Energy Group Inc.Canada
EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Kathleen P. McSherry, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ridgewood Energy M
Fund, LLC;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.


Dated:   April 5, 2007

   /s/   KATHLEEN P. MCSHERRY
 Name:   Kathleen P. McSherry

Title:   Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
         (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN ITS ANNUAL REPORT ON
FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          69,761
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  541,308<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                    26,019<F2>
<INVENTORY>                                     55,348
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               697,245
<PP&E>                                       1,891,870
<DEPRECIATION>                                 643,085
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,525,082
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          379,030
<BONDS>                                      1,106,256
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,443
<OTHER-SE>                                     850,652
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,525,082
<SALES>                                      3,267,189
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,281,028
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,958,942
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               105,468
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0<F3>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              91,111
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                125,507
<INCOME-TAX>                                    73,481
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             52,026
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (1,726)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    50,300
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .49
<FN>
<F1>Excludes $42,257 of long-term notes receivable.
<F2>Excludes $4,951 of allowance for long-term notes receivable.
<F3>Included in Total costs and expenses line.
</FN>


</TABLE>
C a us e N o. 11 - 08 - 00 23 8- C V. 1 C a us e N o. 11 - 08 - 00 23 9- C V. 2 C a us e N o. 11 - 08 - 00 24 0- C V. 3 Opinion filed Ap ril 16 , 2 009



### In The 

# Eleven th Court of Appeals

____________ 

### Nos . 11 -0 8- 00 23 8- CV, 11 -0 8- 00 23 9- CV, & 11 -0 8- 00 24 0- CV

____ ____ __ JERR Y L EWIS D EDRICK, Ap pellant

V. STA TE OF TEX AS , A ppellee On App eals from the 142nd District Court Midland County, Texas Trial Court Cause Nos. CR- 19,164, CR-13,996, & CR-16,535

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N These a re appea ls f

rom the trial cour

t’s order s denying Jerry

L ewis De drick’s pr o se motions to v a c a te thr e e pr ior

c onvic tio ns . We a ff

ir m. Procedural Bac kground Appellant is attempting to expunge or have va cate d his 1993 conviction for d elivery of coca ine, the 1990 re vocation of his community supervision from his 1987 conviction for possession 1 o f c o c a i n e , an d

h i s 1 9 9 0 c o n v i c t i o nf

o r d e l i v e r y o f c o c a i n e . Ap p e l l an tw a s s e n t e n c e d to 2 3 confine ment for f

ifteen year s for the 1993 c onviction and conf inement for te n y ea rs fo r t h e 19902

convicti o n an dfor the 1990 r evocation. Appellant is curre ntly confine d in the FCC Be aumont Medium, a fe dera l corre ctional complex, as a re sult of a conviction for a coc aine r elated of

fense . In e a c h c a se , appel lan t fi le d p ro se mot ion s to e xpun g e and to v a c a te his c onvic tio ns . Appellant ar g ued in these motions that expungingthese c onvictions was in the best intere st of justice be c a us e e xpun c tio n w ou ld inc re a se his c ha nc e s to be a

tr us te e in t he fe de ra l sy ste m. A

pp e lla nt a lso argue d th a t f

a ilure to v a c a te or

e xpun g e wo uld

re su lt i n d ou

ble je op ard

y vio latio ns . Th e tr ia l c ourt

e nte re d o rd e rs de nyinge a c h o f a pp e lla nt’ s mo tio ns . Issue on Appe al In his pro se brief

s, appellant c halleng es the trial c ourt’s orde rs on the g roun d that eac h of his guilty pleas we re not voluntarily enter ed. He argues t hat t here is showing or “me mory ” of pr oper wa ive r o r a dmo nis hme nt. Applicable Law T EX . C ODE C R IM . P R OC . ANN . arts. 55.01-.06 ( Ver non 2006 & Supp. 2008) de fines the reme dy of expunction and details the procedure . Ex punction is only available afte r convic tion if the de fe nd ant h a s su

bs e qu e ntl y

be e n pard on e d. Ar

tic le 55 .0 1. Th e re c or d b e fo re thi s c ourt a ff ir mativ e ly e sta bli sh e s th a t a

pp e lla nt h a s n ot b e e n p ard on e d f or any of the thr e e c onvic tio ns . Ho ldi ng of t his Cou rt Appellant is attempting to c ollatera lly attack his thre e fina l convictions. Ex punction is not the prope r remedy . The trial court did not err in denying his motions. All of appe llant’s contentions have be en conside red, a

nd eac h is overrule d. The orde rs of the tria l court ar e af firmed. PER C URI AM April 16, 2009 Panel consists of: Wright, C.J ., M c C a l l , J. , an d

S tr an g e , J.
EXHIBIT 31.2
 Chief Financial Officer Certification
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused
such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under
our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in
the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Randall H. BrownRandall H. BrownChief Financial Officer
The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District

1

Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

___________

No. 95-3308

___________

United States of America, *

 *

Appellee, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * Eastern District of Missouri.

Carl Robinson, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: September 12, 1996

 Filed: November 29, 1996

___________

Before BEAM, HANSEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Carl Robinson challenges the 66-month sentence imposed by the

district court after he pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of 1

a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). We affirm.

A police officer stopped Robinson for a traffic violation and asked

Robinson to exit his vehicle. With Robinson's consent, the officer

searched his person and discovered a "hunting-type knife." The officer

arrested Robinson, and a search of the car revealed a loaded, functioning

pistol near the driver's seat. The presentence report recommended a fourlevel offense-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(5), on the basis

that Robinson possessed the firearm "in connection with another felony

offense," namely, two
-2-

counts of "Unlawful Use of a Weapon" to which Robinson had pleaded guilty

in state court. 

Robinson objected, contending the increase was not merited because

he was outside his car in police custody and the firearm was inside the

car, out of his reach and control. Thus, Robinson argued, he no longer

possessed the gun at the time he advanced on the officers and unlawfully

used the knife. The district court overruled the objection on the basis

that unlawful use of a weapon is a continuing offense. Robinson now

contends the evidence was insufficient to support the increase, because the

government failed to satisfy section 2K2.1(b)(5)'s "in connection with"

requirement by proving he possessed the firearm to facilitate his unlawful

use of the knife, citing United States v. Routon, 25 F.3d 815 (9th Cir.

1994). 

We need not address the argument Robinson raises on appeal, because

he failed to present it to the district court. See United States v. Payne,

81 F.3d 759, 764 (8th Cir. 1996). We conclude the district court did not

clearly err. See United States v. Johnson, 60 F.3d 422, 423 (8th Cir.

1995) (per curiam) (standard of review).

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Nathaniel STEWART, Appellant, v. State of Florida, DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, Appellee.

No. 1D18-293

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 29, 2019 Rehearing Denied May 16, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
(LOGO)           One Jackson Place                      Phone: 601 948 6600
                 Suite 400                              Fax:   601 353 7246
                 188 East Capitol Street
                 Jackson, Mississippi 39201-2157




         Report of Independent Accountants on Management's Assertion on
          Compliance with Minimum Servicing Standards Set Forth in the
             UNIFORM SINGLE ATTESTATION PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE BANKERS

The Board of Directors
Cimarron Mortgage Company
and
President
Federal National Mortgage Association

We have examined management's assertion that Cimarron Mortgage Company ("the
Company") complied with the minimum servicing standards set forth in the
Mortgage Bankers Association of America's UNIFORM SINGLE ATTESTATION PROGRAM
FOR MORTGAGE BANKERS (USAP) during the year ended December 31, 1997, included
in the accompanying report title REPORT OF MANAGEMENT. Management is
responsible  for  the  Company's   compliance  with  those   requirements.   Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the
Company's compliance based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with those
requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary
in the  circumstances.  We believe  that our  examination  provides a reasonable
basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination
on the Company's compliance with specified requirements.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned requirements during the year ended December 31, 1997 is fairly
stated, in all material respects.

                                                           /s/Ernst & Young LLP

March 19, 1998


       Ernst & Young LLP is a member of Ernst & Young International, Ltd.
Exhibit 10.17



 




EXHIBIT 10.17




FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE

AMENDED AND RESTATED

2000 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS STOCK PLAN OF

PACIFICARE HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.



     This
First Amendment dated June 12, 2003 (the
“Amendment”) to the Amended
and Restated 2000 Non-Employee Directors Stock Plan (the
“Plan”) of PacifiCare
Health Systems, Inc. hereby amends the Plan as follows:



     1.     Amendment to Section 5.1. Section 5.1 is hereby deleted and replaced
in its entirety with the following:





	 	 	Section 5.1 – Annual Deferral. All Non-Employee Directors may elect to
defer (on a pre-tax basis) a portion of his or her annual retainer by
filing an election to defer on a form provided by the Committee and filed
with the Committee prior to payment of the retainer and prior to
commencement of the applicable period during which services are being
performed in return for the retainer. Any newly elected Non-Employee
Director may defer a portion of his or her initial annual retainer by
filing an election to defer with the Committee prior to payment of the
retainer and prior to the performance of any services as a Board member.



     2.     Limitation on Amendment. This Amendment was approved by the Board in
accordance with Section 6.5 and does not require the approval of the
stockholders of the Company. Except as expressly provided in this Amendment,
no terms or provisions of the Plan are modified or changed and the terms and
provisions of the Plan, as amended by this Amendment, shall continue in full
force and effect.



     3.     Capitalized Terms. Capitalized Terms not defined herein shall have the
meanings ascribed to them in the Plan.
STATE of Louisiana v. Troy YOUNG

NO. 2018-K-1968

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 2019

Denied.
Topics in Model‐Assisted Point

and Variance Estimation in

Clustered Samples

By

Timothy Kennel

Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology Research Conference

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2015
           

     

             

               

               

 

 

 

Outline

1. Improved Variance Estimators for Generalized Regression

Estimators in Cluster Samples

2. Multivariate Logistic‐Assisted Estimators of Totals from Clustered

Survey Samples in the presence of Complete Auxiliary Information

3. Design‐based Inference Assisted by Generalized Linear Models for

Cluster Samples
Population
Sample Leverages
 

 

直追

• 建槻噺 ∑ ∈ 腸 検賦賃 髪 ∑ ∈ 鎚 穴賃 検賃 伐 検賦賃

直追 噺 ∑ ∈ 鎚 賛沈

脹銭沈

貸怠閤沈銭沈

貸怠賛沈

• 懸欠堅暢 建槻

• Generalized Regression Estimator (GREG)

   

• 懸眺 噺 ∑ 賛沈

脹銭沈

貸怠司沈司沈

脹銭沈

貸怠

∈ 鎚 賛沈

• 懸帖 噺 ∑ 賛沈

脹銭沈

貸怠 薩津 伐 殺餐餐

貸怠司沈司沈

脹銭沈貸怠

∈ 鎚 賛沈

貸怠銭沈

貸怠賛沈

• 懸徴 噺 ∑ ∈ 鎚 賛沈

脹銭沈

貸怠 薩津 伐 殺餐餐

貸怠司沈司沈

脹

薩津 伐 殺餐餐

Estimator

̂

̂

• Sandwich Variance Estimators
   

 

 

 

 

 

Confidence Interval Coverage

Estimator Lower Middle Upper

Empirical 3.9 95.3 0.8

眺

帖

徴

18.3 77.2 4.5

10.8 87.0 2.2

4.9 94.1 1.0
         

             

             

     

             

 

Conclusion of Leverage Adjusted Variance

Estimators

• Small samples

• Confidence interval coverage is closer to nominal value.

• Central tendency (median) is closer to true value.

• Extreme estimates are possible.

• More variable.

• Large samples

• Confidence interval coverage is closer to nominal value.

• Conservative estimates.

• Asymptotically unbiased.
       

       

           

   

 

Design‐based Inference Assisted by

Generalized Linear Models for

Clustered Samples in the Presence of

Complete Auxiliary Information
               

      

Example of a Binary Response from the 2000

Tract Level Planning Database
 

 

• 建槻

訂 噺 ∑ ∈ 鎚 穴賃検賃

椎追

• 建槻噺 ∑ ∈ 腸 μ賦賃

直追

• 建槻噺 ∑ ∈ 腸 検賦賃 髪 ∑ ∈ 鎚 穴賃 検賃 伐 検賦賃

直鳥

• 建槻噺 ∑ ∈ 腸 μ賦賃 髪 ∑ ∈ 鎚 穴賃 検賃 μ 賦賃

• 建

陳頂 噺 ∑

陳頂

槻 ∈ 鎚 拳賃 検賃

椎勅暢 噺 警 椎勅

• 建槻 ∑ ∈ 鎚 喧賃検賃

椎勅暢 椎勅

• 建槻 検賃

撫

噺 警撫 ∑ ∈ 鎚 喧賃

Estimators

̂ ̂

̂ ̂

̂

̂

̂
           

     

Box Plot of Logistic‐Assisted Estimators of

Renters in Large Samples
       

         

         ,

陳建槻

直鳥 建槻

   

椎勅暢 建槻

頂 of , and o    

       

           

                 

   

 

Results

• Calibrated estimators are asymptotically unbiased.

• Use canonical ink or calibrated estimators.

• Clear variance reductions ̂ ̂ ̂ ver established

estimators.

• GLM‐assisted estimators require complete data.

• Estimators could be unstable in small samples.

• Performance of variance estimators depends on the sample design

and sample size.
Contact

• Timothy Kennel

• Email: Timothy.L.Kennel@census.gov
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1

                               FIRST AMENDMENT TO
                          NEWFIELD EXPLORATION COMPANY
                             1995 OMNIBUS STOCK PLAN

         WHEREAS, NEWFIELD EXPLORATION COMPANY (the "Company") has heretofore
adopted the NEWFIELD EXPLORATION COMPANY 1995 OMNIBUS STOCK PLAN (the "Plan")
for the benefit of certain employees of the Company; and

         WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan;

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended as follows, effective as of
July 28, 2003:

         1.       Subparagraph II(f) of the Plan shall be deleted and the
following shall be substituted therefor:

                  "(f)     "COMMITTEE" means the Compensation Committee of the
         Board."

         2.       The following new Subparagraph (d) shall be added to Paragraph
IV of the Plan:

                  "(d)     DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY BY THE COMMITTEE.
         Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this Paragraph IV or any
         other provision of the Plan to the contrary, the Committee may from
         time to time, in its sole discretion, delegate all or a portion of its
         powers, duties and responsibilities under the Plan to a subcommittee of
         the Committee. In particular, the Committee may delegate the
         administration (or interpretation of any provision) of the Plan, and
         the right to grant Awards under the Plan, to a subcommittee consisting
         solely of two or more members of the Committee who are outside
         directors (within the meaning of the term "outside directors" as used
         in section 162(m) of the Code and applicable interpretive authority
         thereunder and within the meaning of "Non-Employee Director" as defined
         in Rule 16b-3). The Committee may put any conditions and restrictions
         on the powers that may be exercised by such subcommittee upon such
         delegation as the Committee determines in its sole discretion, and the
         Committee may revoke such delegation at any time."

         3.       As amended hereby, the Plan is specifically ratified and
reaffirmed.