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

Exhibit 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER (1)

Pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as  created  by  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  the  following  certification  is  being  made to
accompany  Catskill  Litigation  Trust's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the
period ended September 30, 2004;

In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of  Catskill  Litigation  Trust (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended  September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Joseph E.  Bernstein,  Acting Chief Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  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
          Section 15(d), as applicable,  of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
          as amended; and

     (2)  The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.

                                       /s/  Joseph E. Bernstein
                                      -------------------------------
                                      Name:       Joseph E. Bernstein
                                      Title:      Acting Chief Executive Officer
                                      Date:       November 12, 2004

     (1)  A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906
          has been provided to Catskill Litigation Trust and will be retained by
          Catskill Litigation Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
          Commission or its staff upon request.

The foregoing  certification  is being  furnished  solely  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section  1350 and is not  being  filed as part of the  Report  or as a  separate
disclosure document.
```
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED June 21, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-51215 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus WILLIE E. PHILLIPS, also known as Big Willie, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-02-CR-395-1

-------------------- Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Willie E. Phillips, federal prisoner # 31582-180, appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute cocaine base and conspiracy to launder money. Phillips argues that the Government engaged in prosecutorial vindictiveness and breached the terms of his plea agreement by failing to file a motion for a downward departure. He contends that the district court should have enforced this provision or allowed him to withdraw his guiltyNo. 03-51215 -2- plea. Phillips also asserts that his sentence is unconstitutional under the Sixth Amendment in light of Blakely v. Washington , 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004). We review de novo the district court’s determination whether the Government breached a plea agreement. United States v. Price , 95 F.3d 364, 367 (5th Cir. 1996) . The defendant bears the burden of establishing a breach. Id. As part of the plea agreement, the Government retained the “sole discretion” to determine whether to file a motion for a downward departure on Phillips’s behalf. Phillips concedes that this court has held that when the Government retains discretion whether to file a motion for a downward departure its decision is reviewable only to determine whether the Government acted pursuant to an unconstitutional motive. However, he argues, citing law from other circuits, that this court should expand its review of such decisions to include whether the Government acted in bad faith in deciding not to move for a downward departure. Because the Government retained its discretion to determine whether to move for a downward departure and Phillips has not ascribed any unconstitutional motive to this decision, we are bound by our prior decisions in United States v. Aderholt , 87 F.3d 740, 741-42 (5th Cir. 1996), and Price to hold that he has not established a breach of the plea agreement and is not entitled to relief on this issue.No. 03-51215 -3- Phillips’s claim of sentencing error under the Sixth Amendment is barred by the waiver-of-appeal provision in his plea agreement. See United States v. McKinney , 406 F.3d 744, 746-47 (5th Cir. 2005).

AFFIRMED.
34 Office of Economic Adjustment - Defense Spending by State, FY 2016

 Data sources: DoD’s Defense Manpower Data Center; DoD’s Procurement and Acquisition Policy; DoD’s Military Installations, Ranges and Training Areas; USASpending.gov; U.S. Bureau of Economic 

Analysis; U.S. Census Bureau; and Unitedstateszipcodes.org.

FLORIDA

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

DEFENSE PERSONNEL

FISCAL YEAR 2016

By Type

Service: 48%

Construction: 2%

Research and 

Development: 6%

Supplies and 

Equipment: 44%

By Service

Top Defense Contractors (M=millions B=billions)

Lockheed Martin $2.9 B

Northrop Grumman $997.7 M

Raytheon $719.0 M

General Dynamics $445.8 M

ITT $276.4 M

Crowley $229.7 M

Leonardo S.p.A. (Finmeccanica) $214.0 M

BAE Systems $175.4 M

Honeywell $163.7 M

Jacobs Engineering Group $163.1 M

$11.6

$13.1 $13.4 $13.6

$10.7 $11.1

$12.1 $12.0 30%

22%

30%

18%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, Billions)

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$5.9 BILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

152,236

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Total* Active Duty Civilians

Military

Escambia 34,801 30,618 2,831

Okaloosa 28,938 19,950 7,612

Duval 27,553 13,885 8,922

Hillsborough 13,597 7,343 2,908

Bay 9,107 5,308 3,069

Miami-Dade 6,502 1,532 1,450

Brevard 5,902 2,019 2,648

Orange 5,642 413 2,435

Santa Rosa 2,306 1,856 368

Pinellas 2,146 86 310

*Total also includes uniformed National Guard and Reserve units.

National Guard/

Reserve: 19%

Active Duty: 58%

Civilian: 23%

24%

38%

37%

1%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense
Office of Economic Adjustment - Defense Spending by State, FY 2016 35

Escambia

Duval

Okaloosa

Bay

Brevard 

Miami-Dade Monroe 

Orange 

Hillsborough

Escambia

Duval

Okaloosa

Bay

Brevard 

Palm Beach

Broward 

Pinellas

Orange 

Hillsborough

Okaloosa County

$1.5 B

Duval County

$1.2 B

Escambia County 

$739.3 M

Hillsborough County

$700.4 M

Bay County

$472.2 M

Brevard County

$282.6 M

Orange County

$248.7 M

Miami-Dade County

$229.3 M

Santa Rosa County

$94.3 M

Monroe County

$94.2 M

(M=millions)

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS (M=millions)

Orange County

$4.0 B

Brevard County

$1.7 B

Duval County

$1.2 B

Okaloosa County

$1.1 B

Hillsborough County

$951.6 M

Pinellas County

$700.4 M

Bay County

$326.2 M

Escambia County

$315.5 M

Broward County

$300.7 M

Palm Beach County

$277.8 M

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M=millions B=billions)

#5

$17.9 B 

SPENT IN STATE

#23

1.9% OF STATE GDP

4.7%

OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

$867

PER RESIDENT

#6

$12.0 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

#6

152,236 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

#6

$5.9 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

FISCAL YEAR 2016 FLORIDA

(M=millions B=billions)

Santa Rosa

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active
### The Honorable Edward L. Filippine, United States Distric t 1 

### Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. ___________ No. 95-2585

___________ Nicholas Steven Smith, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. Teamsters Local Union, No. 688; * National Foods, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: March 6, 1996 Filed: March 12, 1996

___________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Nicholas Steven Smith appeals from the district court's orde r 1 disposing of his claims of employment discrimination and unfai r repres entation. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties ' briefs, we conclude the judgment of the district court was correct . Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
30 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020

CONNECTICUT 

#6 #3 4.0% $6,646 #4 #38 #36 

$23.6 B SPENT IN 8.2% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S. PER RESIDENT $22.8 B CONTRACT 15,568 NUMBER OF $0.8 B PERSONNEL 

STATE DEFENSE SPENDING SPENDING PERSONNEL SPENDING 

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

By Type Research and 

Construction: 0% Development: 6%

Service: 6%

Supplies and

Equipment: 88% 

By Service 

Army

9%

Navy/Marines

76%

Air Force

12%

Other Defense

2%

DEFENSE PERSONNEL 

Allocations, By Type

Reserve: 12%

Active Duty: 39%

National 

Guard: 31%

Civilian: 18%

Allocations, By Service 

Army

37%

Navy/Marines

50%

Air Force

9%

Other Defense

4%

Top Defense Contractors (M = millions, B = billions)

General Dynamics $11.6 B

United Technologies $5.8 B

Lockheed Martin $4.1 B

Apiject Systems America Inc. $138.0 M

Sonalysts $77.8 M

Weeks Marine $67.3 M

Spectrum Associates Inc. $66.4 M

Ensign-Bickford Aerospace & Defense Co. $55.6 M

Triumph Group Inc. $46.7 M

Gartner $44.3 M

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

$22.8

$18.9

$15.2 $13.3 $13.3 $12.3

FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16

$10.1 $10.8

FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20

$798.9 MILLION 15,568

TOTAL PAYROLL TOTAL PERSONNEL 

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active Civilian National Reserve Total

Duty Guard

New London 3,871 1,585 1,076 354 6,886

Hartford 70 846 2,298 559 3,773

Middlesex ND 71 616 419 ND

New Haven 88 65 434 291 878

Fairfield 12 206 219 314 751

Tolland 45 ND 40 0 ND

Litchfield 0 12 0 0 12

Windham 0 ND 0 0 ND
Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2020 31

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS

(M=millions)

(M=millions) (M=millions)

CONNECTICUT FISCAL YEAR 2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018

FISCAL YEAR 2020 

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS 

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M = millions, B = billions)

New London

Hartford

Fairfield

New Haven

Middlesex

Tolland

Litchfield

Windham

(K = thousands, M = millions)

$12.0 B

$6.1 B

$4.4 B 

$215.3 M

$66.1 M

$53.0 M

$22.9 M

$14.5 M

New London

Hartford

Fairfield

New Haven

Middlesex

Tolland

Litchfield

Windham

$408.3 M

$148.3 M

$34.6 M 

$29.4 M

$27.6 M

$4.0 M

$771.5 K

$526.5 K

Litchfield

Hartford

Tolland

Windham

New London

Fairfield

Middlesex

New Haven

Litchfield

Hartford

Tolland

Windham

New London

Fairfield

Middlesex

New Haven
STATE of North Carolina v. Charles Melvin CAMPBELL and Richard Clayton Campbell.

No. 320P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 6, 2005.

Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., Southern Pines, for Charles M. & Richard C. Campbell.

James P. Longest, Jr., Special Deputy Attorney General, L. Johnson Britt, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th day of June 2005 by Defendants in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of October 2005."
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14 OR 15D-14
                     OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I, Antonio F. Uccello, III, Chief Financial Officer certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10QSB of Sign Media Systems,
Inc.

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The Registrant's other certifying officers and I am responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and I have:

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

         (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

         (c) presented in this annual report my conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5. The Registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

         (a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

         (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and

6. The Registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls
or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


Dated:  September 9, 2005


/s/ Antonio F. Uccello, III
Antonio F. Uccello, III
Chief Financial Officer
HEAD v. STATE.

No. COA05-1015.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed April 18, 2006.

Certification Date May 8, 2006.

Appeal from the Rutherford (04CVS1395).

Case reported without published opinion. Dismissed.
#### Leroy White, Appellant, v Crystal Gooding, Respondent.

[800 NYS2d 568]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jacobson, J.), dated February 22, 2005, which denied his motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is granted.

The plaintiff made a prima facie showing of negligence on the part of the defendant based on the deposition testimony of the parties that the motor vehicle accident occurred when the defendant pulled her vehicle to the right to allow an ambulance to pass and then proceeded back across a moving lane of traffic, without ascertaining what traffic was behind her, in order to make an unexpected left turn across the plaintiffs lane of travel in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1128 (a) and § 1143 *(see Jacino v Sugerman,*10 AD3d 593 [2004]; *Ferrara v Castro,*283 AD2d 392, 393 [2001]). In opposition, the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact as she merely alleged, unsupported by any evidence, that the plaintiff could have taken some unspecified action to avoid the accident or that he somehow contributed to its cause *(see Jacino v Sugerman,*supra;*Stoebe v Norton,*278 AD2d 484, 485 [2000]; *Williams v Econ,*221 AD2d 429, 430 [1995]). Accordingly, the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the issue of liability. Schmidt, J.E, Santucci, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.
88 Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by Territory, FY 2022

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

DEFENSE PERSONNEL

By Type

By Service

Top Defense Contractors (M = millions) 

General Electric $752.0 M

CFM International $331.7 M

Riverside Research Institute $211.9 M

W.A. Baxter & Sons, Ltd. $175.0 M

University of Dayton $157.4 M

Battelle Memorial Institute $144.9 M

Boeing $118.8 M

Frontier Technology, Inc. $116.5 M

Tesoro Refining & Marketing Company, LLC $93.1 M

Husky Marketing and Supply Co. $92.5 M

Contract Awards Performed (By Fiscal Year, billions)

OHIO

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$3.6 BILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

59,470

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active 

Duty

Civilian National 

Guard

Reserve Total

Greene 5,170 14,785 ND 2,391 ND

Franklin 344 6,195 3,786 2,708 13,033

Cuyahoga 225 1,997 386 176 2,784

Clark ND 298 1,641 ND ND

Hamilton 117 259 637 838 1,851

Trumbull 18 60 366 1,402 1,846

Summit 13 279 406 910 1,608

Richland ND 248 1,308 ND ND

Stark 24 47 680 781 1,532

Fulton ND 0 997 0 ND

Construction: 1% Research and

Development: 21%

Service: 27%

Supplies and

Equipment: 51%

Active Duty: 11%

Civilian: 46%

National 

Guard: 26%

Reserve: 17%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

9%

8%

56%

27%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

31%

4%

49%

16%

$3.5 $3.7 $4.4

$5.2 $5.5

$6.8

$5.2 $5.1

FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22

#20 #39 1.6% $759 #23 #16 #12 #11

$8.9 B SPENT 

IN STATE

1.1% OF 

STATE GDP

OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

PER 

RESIDENT

$5.1 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

59,470 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

$3.6 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

$201.5 M GRANT 

SPENDING
Office of Local Defense Community Cooperation — Defense Spending by State, FY 2022 89

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS

FISCAL YEAR 2018

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS

Hancock

Warren

FISCAL YEAR 2018 OHIO

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M = millions, B = billions) (M=millions) (M=millions)

FISCAL YEAR 2022

Greene

Hamilton

Montgomery

Franklin

Butler

Licking

Cuyahoga

Hancock

Miami

Warren

(M = millions, B = billions)

$1.5 B

$1.1 B

$787.9 M

$467.6 M

$376.1 M

$202.8 M

$160.3 M

$93.2 M

$90.4 M

$56.7 M

Greene

Franklin

Cuyahoga

Hamilton

Clark

Summit

Trumbull

Montgomery

Richland

Licking

$2.0 B

$706.6 M

$168.6 M

$67.9 M

$66.0 M

$53.4 M

$50.5 M

$48.9 M

$46.3 M

$39.1 M

Cuyahoga

Cuyahoga

Miami Licking Franklin

Licking Franklin

Clark

Trumbull

Summit

Greene

Greene

Montgomery

Montgomery

Butler

Hamilton

Hamilton

Richland
ELKINS v. CITY OF GREENSBORO, BD. OF ADJUSTMENT

No. COA04-918

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Filed October 4, 2005

Certification Date October 24, 2005

Appeal from Guilford (03CVS13096).

Cases reported without published opinion. Reversed and remanded.
104 Office of Economic Adjustment — Defense Spending by State, FY 2018

 Data sources: DoD’s Defense Manpower Data Center; DoD’s Procurement and Acquisition Policy; DoD’s Military Installations, Ranges and Training Areas; USASpending.gov; U.S. Bureau of Economic 

Analysis; U.S. Census Bureau; and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

, DEFENSE CONTRACTS

DEFENSE PERSONNEL

By Type

By Service

Top Defense Contractors (M = millions, B = billions) 

Lockheed Martin $19.4 B

Bell Boeing Joint Project Office $2.1 B

L3 Technologies $2.1 B

Raytheon $1.5 B

Textron $956.1 M

Royal Dutch Shell $936.2 M

Cerberus Capital Management $695.6 M

Andeavor $523.9 M

Valero Energy $494.0 M

Airbus $363.1 M

Contract Awards Performed (by fiscal year, billions)

TEXAS

#3 #17 10.2% $1,770 #2 #3 #3

$50.8 B SPENT 

IN STATE

2.8% OF STATE GDP OF TOTAL U.S. 

DEFENSE SPENDING

PER RESIDENT $39.9 B CONTRACT 

SPENDING

218,993 NUMBER 

OF PERSONNEL

$10.9 B PERSONNEL 

SPENDING

Allocations, By Type

Allocations, By Service

$10.9 BILLION

TOTAL PAYROLL

218,993

TOTAL PERSONNEL

Top Defense Personnel Locations

County Active 

Duty

Civilian National 

Guard

Reserve Total

Bexar 35,972 22,248 3,253 8,934 70,407

Bell 32,206 5,405 453 808 38,872

El Paso 25,785 4,061 1,149 1,828 32,823

Tarrant 1,153 2,549 1,635 6,173 11,510

Harris 663 702 2,878 3,864 8,107

Wichita 5,969 1,095 196 134 7,394

Dallas 480 881 1,708 4,025 7,094

Nueces 1,486 3,706 181 473 5,846

Taylor 4,383 501 161 346 5,391

Travis 209 656 2,678 1,016 4,559

Service: 22%

Supplies and

Equipment: 73%

Construction: 2%

Research and

Development: 3%

Active Duty: 54%

Civilian: 22%

National

Guard: 10%

Reserve: 15%

22%

42%

19%

17%

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

Army

Navy/Marines

Air Force

Other Defense

60%

8%

29%

2%

$29.4 $31.5 $33.4

$23.8

$29.0 $26.9

$40.9 $39.9

FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18
Office of Economic Adjustment — Defense Spending by State, FY 2018 105

AF Active AF Guard AF Reserve Army Active Army Guard Army Reserve MC Active Navy Active WHS

(M=millions)

FISCAL YEAR 2018

TOP DEFENSE PERSONNEL SPENDING LOCATIONS (M=millions)

Potter

Hunt Collin

Tarrant

El Paso

Bell

Travis

Harris Bexar

FISCAL YEAR 2018 TEXAS

TOP DEFENSE CONTRACT SPENDING LOCATIONS (M = millions, B = billions) (M=millions) (M=millions)

FISCAL YEAR 2018

Tarrant

Dallas

Bexar

Harris

Potter

Collin

Hunt

El Paso

Travis

Bell

(M = millions, B = billions)

$17.8 B

$6.0 B

$3.7 B

$3.0 B

$2.0 B

$1.6 B

$1.5 B

$1.0 B

$410.1 M

$400.3 M

Bexar

Bell

El Paso

Tarrant

Nueces

Taylor

Wichita

Dallas

Harris

Travis

$3.9 B

$2.1 B

$1.7 B

$431.6 M

$386.1 M

$284.5 M

$247.3 M

$244.2 M

$240.7 M

$177.7 M

Wichita

Dallas

Taylor

El Paso

Bell

Travis

Harris

Bexar

Nueces

Tarrant

Dallas
exv10w4



 






Exhibit 10.4




PRIDE
INTERNATIONAL, INC.

EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN




(As Amended and Restated Effective April 1, 2000)



First Amendment



          Pride International, Inc. (the “Company”), having previously established the Pride
International, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan, as amended and restated effective April 1, 2000
(the “Plan”), and having reserved the right under Section 19 thereof to amend the Plan, does hereby
amend Section 3 of the Plan, as approved by the Company’s Board of Directors on February 17, 2005,
and subject to and effective as of the date of shareholder approval at the 2005 annual meeting, to
increase the number of shares which may be issued thereunder by deleting both occurrences of the
phrase “five hundred thousand (500,000)” and placing in lieu thereof the phrase “one million one
hundred thousand (1,100,000)”.




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	PRIDE INTERNATIONAL, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Louis A. Raspino
 	 
	 	 	Louis A. Raspino 	 
	 	 	President and Chief Executive Officer 	 
	 



	 	 	 	 	 
	Attested to by the Secretary of Pride
International, Inc. as adopted by the
Board of Directors on February 17,
2005 and as approved by the
shareholders of Pride International,
Inc. at the annual meeting on May 12,
2005.
	 	 	 	 






	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ W. Gregory Looser
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	W. Gregory Looser
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Secretary
	 	 	 	 	 	 






- 1 -
Exhibit 10.1


 


Summary of Named Executive Officer’s Salary for 2005


 


On May 17, 2005, Thomas J. Wilson was
elected President and Chief Operating Officer of the registrant, effective as
of June 1, 2005.  In connection with that election, the registrant’s
Board of Directors, upon recommendation from the Compensation and Succession
Committee, increased Mr. Wilson’s annual base salary, as of June 1,
2005, to $800,000 from $702,000.  This
salary may be changed at any time at the discretion of the Board.