alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Schedule of Purchasers



 



Exhibit 4.9



Schedule of Purchasers






	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Number	 	 	Purchase	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	of Shares	 	 	Price Per	 	 	Aggregate Purchase	 
	Purchasers	 	Purchased	 	 	Share	 	 	Price	 
	
	 	
	 	 	
	 	 	
	 
	Maple Row (Bermuda) Ltd
	 	 	105,263	 	 	$	9.50	 	 	$	999,998.50	 
	Maple Row Partners, L.P.
	 	 	421,052	 	 	$	9.50	 	 	$	3,999,994.00	 
	Sunken Treasures Ltd.
	 	 	315,789	 	 	$	9.50	 	 	$	2,999,995.50	 
	UBS O’Connor LLC f/b/o O’Connor
PIPES Corporate Strategies Ltd.
	 	 	215,789	 	 	$	9.50	 	 	$	2,049,995.50	 
	Eagle Asset Management
	 	 	105,263	 	 	$	9.50	 	 	$	999,998.50	 
	SF Capital Partners Ltd.
	 	 	315,789	 	 	$	9.50	 	 	$	2,999,995.50	 
	Needham Growth Fund
	 	 	150,000	 	 	$	9.50	 	 	$	1,425,000.00	 
	Needham Contrarian Fund
	 	 	60,000	 	 	$	9.50	 	 	$	570,000.00	 
	Needham Emerging Growth Partners, L.P.
	 	 	118,421	 	 	$	9.50	 	 	$	1,124,999.50	 
	Needham Emerging Growth Partners
(Caymans) L.P.
	 	 	35,000	 	 	$	9.50	 	 	$	332,500.00	 
	Needham Aggressive Growth Fund
	 	 	5,000	 	 	$	9.50	 	 	$	47,500.00	 
	Coutts Bank (Switzerland) Ltd
	 	 	263,157	 	 	$	9.50	 	 	$	2,499,991.50	 
	AEGON/Transamerica Series Fund, Inc. –
Third Avenue Value
	 	 	100,000	 	 	$	9.50	 	 	$	950,000.00	 
	Third Avenue Small-Cap Value Fund
	 	 	200,000	 	 	$	9.50	 	 	$	1,900,000.00	 
	Third Avenue Value Fund
	 	 	350,000	 	 	$	9.50	 	 	$	3,325,000.00	 
	Third Avenue Variable Series Trust Third
Avenue Value Portfolio
	 	 	150,000	 	 	$	9.50	 	 	$	1,425,000.00	 
	SunAmerica Style Select Series Small-
Cap Value Portfolio
	 	 	200,000	 	 	$	9.50	 	 	$	1,900,000.00
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-15-00277-CR

John Forrest LOWE,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 198th Judicial District Court, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. B10794

Honorable Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED December 2, 2015.

_____________________________

Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice
#### BERNARD BARNA, Appellant, v. WARDEN, NEVADA STATE PRISON, Respondent.

No. 7675

April 30, 1975

534 P.2d 499

*Horace R. Goff,*State Public Defender, and *Michael R. Griffin,*Special Deputy Public Defender, for Appellant.

*Larry R. Hicks,*District Attorney, and *Kathleen M. Wall,*Assistant Chief Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

We affirm the district court denial of post-conviction relief since the record does not support the appellant’s claim that his plea of guilty to robbery was the result of a plea bargain which the prosecutor violated. Other claimed errors have been considered and also lack merit.

Affirmed.
#### Charles W. Hartman *vs.*Albertina Munch.

October 21, 1874.

Homestead of Equitable Owner.— *Wilder*v. Saughey, *(ante,*p. *101,*) followed as to the right of an equitable owner of land to claim and hold the same as a homestead under the Homestead Law of this State.

This action was brought in the district court for Sibley county, to recover possession of a tract of land in that county, containing eighty acres, and was tried before Ghat-field, J. and a jury. The evidence introduced by the plaintiff having established the facts stated in the following opinion, the action was dismissed on the defendant’s motion, and a judgment of dismissal and for costs was entered in favor of the defendant, from which the plaintiff appeals.

*Sylvester Kipp, for*appellant.

*Daniel Piclcit,*for respondent.

Berry, J.

Adam Munch was assignee of two school-*108land certificates, of the same character as those considered in *Wilder*v. *Haughey (ante,*p. 101). It appeared that he had assigned the certificates to the plaintiff, but that the defendant (his wife) did not join in the assignment. It also appeared that at the time when the assignment was executed, the premises covered by the certificates were occupied by said Adam and the defendant, they claiming the same as a homestead. The right and interest of said Adam being such as to entitle him to hold the premises as a homestead, under the provisions of ch. 68, Gen. Stat., as we have determined at this term in *Wilder*v. *Haughey, ante,*p. 101, the court below was right in holding the assignment to be invalid.

The return is not in a condition to enable us to consider the point made as to the entry of judgment, or the alleged failure to attach a copy thereof to the roll.

Judgment affirmed.
bldr-ex1023_443.htm



 

Exhibit 10.23

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO

AMENDED AND RESTATED 
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

This AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) between David E. Flitman (“Executive”) and Builders FirstSource, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), is entered into as of January 31, 2022 and is effective as of 12:01 am Eastern Time on January 1, 2021 (the “Effective Time”).

RECITALS

WHEREAS, reference is made to that certain Amended and Restated Employment Agreement between Executive, the Company, and BMC Stock Holdings, Inc., entered into as of August 26, 2020 and effective as of the Effective Time (the “Current Employment Agreement”); and

WHEREAS, Executive and the Company desire to amend Section 2.1(b) the Current Employment Agreement to correct a clerical error.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual covenants contained herein, the Company and Executive hereby agree as follows:

AGREEMENT

1.1Amendment

. Section 2.1(b) of the Current Employment Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:

“Annual Cash Bonus. During the term of employment, Executive shall be eligible to participate under the Company’s annual incentive program for executive officers, as in effect and from time to time adopted by the Board (the “Incentive Plan”) for the award of an annual cash bonus (“Annual Cash Bonus”). The Annual Cash Bonus shall be determined based on a target bonus equal to 125% of Base Salary (the “Target Bonus”), and shall provide for a maximum Annual Cash Bonus opportunity equal to 200% of Target Bonus; provided that Executive’s Annual Cash Bonus in respect of the year during which the Effective Time occurs shall be prorated based on the number of days during such year Executive is employed by the Company.  Payment of the Annual Cash Bonus, if any, shall be made pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Incentive Plan.”

1.2Other Agreements

. Except as modified by this Amendment, the Current Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.

1.3Counterparts

. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

1.4Governing Law

. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Delaware without regard to its principles of conflicts of laws. 

[Signatures on following page]

 

 

 

 



 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first written above.

 


			
	
COMPANY:
	
 
	
EXECUTIVE:

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
BUILDERS FIRSTSOURCE, INC.
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
 
	
 
	
 

	
By: /s/ Timothy Johnson
	
 
	
/s/ David E. Flitman

	
Name: Timothy Johnson
	
 
	
David E. Flitman

	
Its: Executive Vice President & General
	
 
	
 

	
Counsel
#### STATE v. ELIJAH CAMPBELL

No. 6917SC104

(Filed 5 February 1969)

Appeal by defendant from *Beal, S.J.,*14 October 1968, Criminal Session, RockiNGHAm Superior Court.

The defendant was charged in a valid bill of indictment with the felony of prison escape. The defendant voluntarily and understandingly waived the appointment of an attorney to represent him and appeared without an attorney.

The defendant freely, voluntarily, and understanding^ entered a plea of guilty.

This all occurred in open court 16 October 1968, and the defendant was sentenced to a term of one year in the Rockingham County common jail to be assigned to the North Carolina Department of Correction. On 18 October 1968 the defendant wrote to the clerk of court in Rockingham County giving notice of appeal.

An attorney was appointed to perfect the appeal and to represent the defendant on the appeal.

*Attorney General Robert Morgan and Deputy Attorney General Harry W. McGalliard for the State.*

*Benjamin R. Wrenn, Court-Appointed Attorney, for defendant appellant.*

Campbell, J.

This is another typical case where the system breaks down. The defendant, without expense to himself, has called upon the taxpayers to furnish him with an attorney to present this matter to this Court. This attorney has reviewed the proceedings and, after such review, has filed a brief in which he frankly states that he finds no errors. The Attorney General has reviewed the record on appeal and agrees with the defense counsel that no prejudicial error has been made to appear.

We, likewise, have reviewed the record on appeal, and we conclude that no error has been made to appear. Compare with *State v. Fowler,*3 N.C. App. 232, 164 S.E. 2d 387.

Affirmed.

BROCK and Morris, JJ., concur.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5259 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to require preseparation counseling 

for members of the reserve components upon their retirement or separation from service. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 11, 2010 

Ms. PINGREE of Maine introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to require 

preseparation counseling for members of the reserve components upon their retirement or separation from service. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Equal Access to 

5 Preseparation Counseling Act’’. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5259 IH

1 SEC. 2. PRESEPARATION COUNSELING FOR MEMBERS OF 

2 THE RESERVE COMPONENTS. 

3 (a) REQUIREMENT; EXCEPTION.—Subsection (a)(1) 

4 of section 1142 of title 10, United States Code, is amend5 ed— 

6 (1) in the first sentence— 

7 (A) by striking ‘‘Within’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘(A) Within’’; and 

9 (B) by striking ‘‘of each member’’ and all 

10 that follows through the period at the end of 

11 the sentence and inserting the following: ‘‘of— 

12 ‘‘(i) each member of the armed forces whose 

13 discharge or release from active duty is anticipated 

14 as of a specific date; and 

15 ‘‘(ii) each member of a reserve component not 

16 covered by clause (i) whose discharge or release from 

17 service is anticipated as of a specific date.’’; and 

18 (2) in the second sentence, by striking ‘‘A nota19 tion of the provision of such counseling’’ and insert20 ing the following: 

21 ‘‘(B) A notation of the provision of preseparation 

22 counseling’’. 

23 (b) CLARIFICATION OF COVERED MATTERS.—Sub24 section (b)(7) of such section is amended by striking 

25 ‘‘from active duty’’. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with BILLS
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U. S. C. SECTION 1350**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Vistula Communications Services, Inc.
      (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      Jared P. Taylor, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to my best
      knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, adopted pursuant to §906 of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1)  the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 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/
                Jared P. TaylorJared
                P. TaylorChief
                Financial Officer




Dated:
      May 22, 2007





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
      authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
      in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
      by Section 906, has been provided to Vistula Communications Services, Inc.
      and
      will be retained by Vistula Communications Services, Inc. and furnished to
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### CHRIS J. OWENS, Appellant, v. EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK, AND THE HONORABLE JOHN MENDOZA, DISTRICT COURT JUDGE, DEPARTMENT V, Respondents.

No. 17870

June 24, 1988

756 P.2d 1183

[Rehearing denied December 8, 1988]

*Rex A. Bell,*District Attorney, *James Tufteland,*Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Appellant.

*Brian McKay,*Attorney. General, Carson City; *Philip R. Byrnes,*Deputy Attorney General, Las Vegas; C. *Stanley Hunter-ton,*Las Vegas, for Respondents.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Appellant Chris Owens was held in contempt of court for comments uttered during the closing argument of a criminal trial. We hold that such remarks do not rise to the level of contempt under the circumstances of this case.

*266Prior to closing arguments, the district court read various instructions to the jury including jury instruction number thirteen, an advisory instruction of acquittal. NRS 175.381. During closing argument and in the process of explaining to the jury why he thought the evidence supported a conviction, the prosecution said: “As I indicated earlier, the Court has given you an opinion to dismiss this case or to find the Defendant not guilty. That’s a glaring Instruction in the group of Instructions that you have. It’s a highly unusual Instruction.” At that point the district court interjected stating that such prosecutorial comments were uncalled for and contrary to the law stated. The court went on to say that “[a]ny *further*conduct along this line will require me to take further proceedings against you, sir.” (Emphasis added.) Owens made no further comments along this line.

The defense’s closing argument focused, in part, on the testimony of two defense witnesses, both of whom were in some way involved with the University of Nevada-Las Vegas basketball team. Subsequently, as the state wound up its rebuttal to the defense’s closing argument, Owens said:

> Be fair. Look at the evidence. Consider your common experiences. Freely discuss what you have seen. Do the fair thing. Rise up as citizens of this State and brand Lawrence West for what he is. Stem the tide of athletic politics in this case and convict Mr. Lawrence West because he is guilty, ladies and gentlemen. He is guilty as charged. Thank you.

After the jury returned a guilty verdict, the district court considered contempt charges against Owens. The district court found Owens’s comments to be contemptuous, citing Owens’s “athletic politics” comment and his argument concerning the court’s advisory instruction as grounds for its finding. Later, when the order was formalized, additional grounds were added.

Upon a careful review of the record, viewing the aforementioned “athletic politics” remark and advisory instruction argument as the foundation for the district court’s contempt finding, we cannot conclude that Owens’s conduct was contemptuous; rather, we view his statements as proper closing argument. Thus, we hold that the district court has abused its discretion and consequently reverse the district court’s order of contempt.
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JESSIE GRAHAM, RONALD L. ROBERTS

No. 763SC28

(Filed 21 April 1976)

Criminal Law § 26; Robbery § 5— armed robbery — assault with deadly weapon — one act — double jeopardy

A defendant, having been convicted of armed robbery, cannot be convicted of the lesser offense of assault with a deadly weapon where both offenses arise out of the same act.

Appeal by defendants from *Lanier, Judge.*Judgments entered 28 August 1975 in Superior Court, Craven County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 16 April 1976.

*Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Noel Lee Allen, for the State.*

*Lee, Hancock & Lasitter, by Moses Dow Lasitter, for defendant appellant, Jessie Graham.*

*Robert G. Bowers, for defendant appellant, Ronald L. Roberts.*

*235VAUGHN, Judge.

We have considered all of the assignments of error brought forward and, except as hereinafter stated, find them to be without merit.

Each defendant was convicted of armed robbery and assault with a deadly weapon. All offenses arose out of the same occurrence. A defendant, having been convicted of armed robbery, cannot be convicted of the lesser offense of assault with a deadly weapon where both offenses arise out of the same act. We must, therefore, arrest judgment in the assault with a deadly weapon cases.

As to each defendant, the judge consolidated the cases for judgment and ordered the imposition of a single sentence. It is necessary, therefore, to remand the cases for entry of a proper judgment against each defendant on the armed robbery conviction.

Nos. 75CR4999 and 75CR4960 (the armed robbery cases) are remanded for resentencing.

In Nos. 75CR4998 and 75CR4959 (the assault with a deadly weapon cases) the judgments are arrested.

Judges Britt and Arnold concur.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 21

- 00312

- CR

Joseph Pastquinel Scott , Appellant

v.

The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE 426TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY NO. 75561 , THE HONORABLE FANCY H. JEZEK , JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Appellant Joseph Past qui nel Scott seeks to appeal a judgment of conviction for

aggra vated sexual assault

. See Tex. Penal Code § 22.021. The trial co urt h as certified that this is

a pl ea

- bargain case an d appellant has no ri g ht of appeal

. Accordingly , we dismiss the appeal for

want of jurisdiction. S ee Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2) , (d).

__________________________________________ Edward Smith , Justice

Before Chief Ju stice Byrne, Jus tices Kelly and Smith

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: March 17, 2022

Do Not Publish
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5244 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 

amounts received for services by a student at a work-college. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 6, 2010 

Mr. DAVIS of Illinois (for himself, Mr. YARMUTH, Mr. ROSKAM, and Mr. 

DAVIS of Kentucky) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude 

from gross income amounts received for services by a 

student at a work-college. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AMOUNTS RECEIVED FOR SERVICES PROVIDED 

4 BY STUDENT AT WORK COLLEGE EXCLUDED 

5 FROM GROSS INCOME. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 117(c) 

7 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by strik8 ing ‘‘or’’ at the end of subparagraph (A), by striking the 

9 period at the end of subparagraph (B) and inserting ‘‘, 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5244 IH

1 or’’, and by adding at the end the following new subpara2 graph: 

3 ‘‘(C) a comprehensive student work-learn4 ing-service program (as defined in section 

5 448(e) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 

6 (42 U.S.C. 2756b(e))) operated by a work col7 lege (as defined in such section).’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

9 this section shall apply to amounts received in taxable 

10 years beginning after December 31, 2010. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with BILLS
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

D.S., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Absecon, NJ, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-1175

Issued: February 15, 2022

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On July 28, 2021 appellant sought an appeal from a purported July 8, 2021 decision of the 

Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards 

assigned Docket No. 21-1175.

The Board, having duly considered the matter, notes that its jurisdiction is limited to the 

review of final adverse OWCP decisions issued under the Federal Employees’Compensation Act.1 

This jurisdiction encompasses any final adverse decision issued by OWCP within 180 days of the 

date appellant filed his appeal.2 The case record as transmitted to the Board does not contain a 

final adverse decision of OWCP issued within 180 days from the date of docketing of the current 

appeal.3 In a July 8, 2021 memorandum of telephone call (Form CA-110), OWCP advised 

appellant to follow his appeal rights if he disagreed with a decision. This communication is purely 

informational in nature and does not constitute a final adverse decision of OWCP from which 

appellant may properly appeal. As there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP over which 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2

20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”

3

Id.
2

the Board may properly exercise jurisdiction, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed as No. 

21-1175 must be dismissed.4 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 21-1175 is dismissed.5

Issued: February 15, 2022

Washington, DC

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

4 OWCP issued a decision dated May7, 2021 in a subsidiary file number, OWCP File No. xxxxxx062. Appellant 

has appealed this decision to the Board. His appeal from the May 7, 2021 decision will proceed under Docket No. 

21-1129. 

5 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” 

20 C.F.R. § 501.6(d).
**Exhibit 32.2**
**CFO CERTIFICATION**
     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 USC §1350, as adopted), JeffreyT. Soukup, the Chief Financial Officer of PlanetOut Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies that, tothe best of his knowledge:
**1.**The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2005, and to whichthis Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
**2.**The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein.
     **InWitness Whereof,**the undersigned has set his hand hereto as ofthe 12th day of May2005.      /s/ Jeffrey T. Soukup       Jeffrey T. Soukup   Chief Financial Officer  
The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is notbeing filed as part of this report. A signed original of this written statement required by Section906 has been provided to PlanetOut Inc. and will be retained by PlanetOut Inc. and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.