alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Pioneer Power Solutions, Inc. 10-Q


 


Exhibit 10.3


 


CONFIDENTIAL


August
8, 2019


Mr.
Thomas Klink


Chief
Financial Officer


Pioneer
Power Solutions, Inc.


Pioneer
Electrogroup Canada Inc.


400
Kelby Street, 9th Floor

Fort Lee, NJ 07024


 


RE:
WAIVER FOR BREACH OF COVENANTS


 


Dear
Mr. Klink,


 


We
refer to our Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated as of April 29, 2016, as amended from time to time (collectively, the
“PPSI Credit Agreement”), between Pioneer Power Solutions, Inc. (the “US Borrower”
or “PPSI”), the Guarantors party thereto and Bank of Montreal (the “Bank”),
acting through its Chicago branch and to that certain Amended and Restated Credit Agreement dated as of April 29, 2016, as amended
from time to time (collectively, the “PECI Credit Agreement”) , among Pioneer Electrogroup Canada Inc., a Quebec
corporation, as borrower (the “Canadian Borrower” or “PECI”), and the Bank. Capitalized
terms used herein without definition shall have the same meanings herein as such terms have in the PPSI Credit Agreement. We more
specifically refer to the sections pertaining to the financial covenants and events of default.


 


Following
receipt of the information for the fiscal quarter ending June 30, 2019, we understand that the US Borrower and the Canadian
Borrower are in default to comply with the minimum EBITDA and Tnagible New Worth ratio set forth in the PPSI Credit Agreement
and the PECI Credit Agreement (the “Default”). As requested, the Bank hereby agrees to waive this Default but
only for the fiscal quarter ending June 30, 2019. This waiver is limited to the matters and time period expressly stated
herein. The Bank reserves all of its rights and remedies under the PPSI Credit Agreement and the PECI Credit Agreement should
PPSI or PECI be or become otherwise in default under the PPSI Credit Agreement or the PECI Credit Agreement, in the event of other
breaches under the PPSI Credit Agreement or the PECI Credit Agreement or should the Bank’s position, in the Bank’s
sole determination, further deteriorate.


 


Regards,

Bank of Montreal


 


 


 


Per:
Deborah Conroy


Senior
Accounts Manager

Tel: 514-877-7764

deborah.conroy@bmo.com
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

 
 

Exhibit 10.28    
    


 
 

Director Compensation    
    


        Effective January 1, 2005, Marathon Oil Corporation will pay its non-employee directors as follows: 



	Annual Retainer	 	$60,000
	

Annual Non-Retainer Common Stock Unit Award	
 	

$60,000
	

Committee Membership Fee	
 	

$5,000

($10,000 for audit committee chair)

($6,000 for other committee chairs)
	

Meeting Fee (for board or committee attendance)	
 	

$2,000





        In
addition to the annual retainer, Marathon will pay its Chairman of the Board, Mr. Usher, a chairman's fee of $240,000 in 2005. The chairman does not receive meeting fees for
his attendance. 











QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.28


Director Compensation
Exhibit 10.2


 





AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT


 


THIS AMENDING AGREEMENT is dated May 7th, 2019.


 


Between:


 


IDEANOMICS, INC., formerly Seven Stars Cloud Group, Inc.,
a Nevada corporation (“Ideanomics” or “SSC”)


 


And:


 


FOMALHAUT LIMITED, a company organized under the laws
of the British Virgin Islands (“SSS”)


 


Background


 


		1.	Ideanomics and SSS (the “Parties”) entered into a Stock Purchase Option Agreement (the “Contract”)
dated August 31st, 2018, for the following purpose:



		·	To grant SSS the option to sell Grapevine Logic, Inc. (“GLI”) shares, or the right to purchase the GLI shares,
to Ideanomics.



 


		2.	The Parties desire to amend the Contract on the terms and conditions set forth in this Amending Agreement (the “Agreement”).



 


		3.	This Agreement is the First amendment to the Contract.



 


 


IN CONSIDERATION OF the Parties agreeing to amend their obligations
in the existing Contract, and other valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties
agree to keep, perform, and fulfill the promises, conditions, and agreements below:


 


Amendments


 


The Contract is amended as follows:


 


		1.	The following is hereby deleted from the Contract:



 


Section 2(b)(i) Cash Consideration. One-third
(1/3) of the Exercise Price shall be paid in cash, by check or by wire transfer (the “Cash Consideration”).


 


		2.	The following from the original Contract is hereby changed and shall hereafter be and read as follows:



 


Section 2(b)(ii) Common Stock Consideration.
The full amount of the Exercise Price shall be paid in the form of common stock of SSC, $.0001 par value per share (the “SSC
Shares”), valued at the closing trading price on the date preceding the date upon which the Option is exercised (the “Common
Stock Consideration”


 






     


     


    

 


In the instance of conflict between the terms of the Agreement
and the Contract, the terms of the Agreement shall prevail.


 


No Other Change


 


Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, all
of the terms and conditions of the Contract remain unchanged and in full force and effect.


 


Miscellaneous Terms


 


Capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Agreement will
have the meanings ascribed to them in the Contract. Headings are inserted for the convenience of the parties only and are not to
be considered when interpreting this Agreement. Words in the singular mean and include the plural and vice versa. Words in the
masculine include the feminine and vice versa. No regard for gender is intended by the language of this Agreement.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties have duly affixed their signatures
under hand on this May 7th, 2019.


 


 


	For Ideanomics, Inc.	 
	 	 
	 	 
	/s/ Alfred Poor	 
	By: Alfred Poor	 
	Title: CEO	 
	 	 
	  	 
	 	 
	For Fomalhaut Limited.	 
	 	 
	 	 
	/s/ Bruno Wu 	 
	By: Bruno Wu 	 
	Title: Chairman
**Exhibit32.01**

 

**Officer Certification**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of PSCo on Form 10-Q for the quarter endedMarch 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (Form 10-Q), each of the undersigned officers of PSCo certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such officer’s knowledge:

 

(1)          The Form 10-Qfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          The informationcontained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of PSCo as of the dates and forthe periods expressed in the Form 10-Q.

 

Date: May 5, 2008

 
|   | /s/ TIM E. TAYLOR                           |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|
|   | Tim E. Taylor                               |
|   | President  and Chief Executive Officer      |
|   |                                        |
|   | /s/ BENJAMIN G.S. FOWKE  III                |
|   | Benjamin G.S. Fowke III                     |
|   | Vice  President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

The foregoing certificationis being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not beingfiled as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating,acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement required by Section906, has been provided to PSCo and will be retained by PSCo and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

1

----
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

Exhibit 10(x)  


 
 

SUMMARY OF
  CONSTELLATION ENERGY GROUP, INC. BOARD OF DIRECTORS
  
    2005 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION PROGRAM    
    


In
2005, non-employee directors of the Constellation Energy Group, Inc. Board of Directors will receive the following compensation: 



	•
	A
$50,000 annual cash retainer, a $10,000 annual cash retainer for the audit committee chairperson and a $5,000 annual cash retainer for each other committee chairperson.



	•
	A
common stock award with a value of approximately $50,000, which stock is subject to pro rata forfeiture if Board service ceases during the year.



	•
	A
$1,250 fee for each regular or special Board or Board committee meeting attended.



	•
	Reasonable
travel expenses to attend meetings. 




        Directors
will have an opportunity to elect to defer some or all of their cash retainers into deferred stock units or into a cash account, to defer some or all of their fees into a cash
account and to defer all of their common stock award into deferred stock units. 











QuickLinks


SUMMARY OF CONSTELLATION ENERGY GROUP, INC. BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2005 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION PROGRAM
#### M. E. WEIMER and Gertrude S. Weimer, his wife, Appellants, v. Frank J. NORDMAN, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division B.

May 11, 1954.

Rehearing Denied July 5, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
### NU MBE R 13- 08- 0019 3-C V 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E XAS CORPUS CHRI ST I -E DI NBURG

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ M IC H AE L SC OT T , Ap pe l l an t, v . BE E C OU N TY , E TA L. , A pp el l ee s.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ On A ppea l from the 1 56th Di strict C ourt of B ee C ou nty , T exas .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _ 

## ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B ef or e C hi ef

Just i ce Val dez and Just i ces Yañez and B enav i des M em or andu m O pi ni on P erC ur i am App ellantperfecte d an app eal f rom a judgmen t ent ered by the 156 Distri ct Court th of Bee C ounty , Texas, i n cause number B-07- 1483- CV -B . Appel lan t hasfil ed a moti on to v olun tarily

dismiss the app eal. Ap pellan t requests tha t this Court dism iss the ap pea l.2

Th e C o u rt , hav ing co nsi dered th e doc uments on fil e and appel lan t’ s mot ion to v olu ntar il y d ism iss t he appe al, i s o f the opi nio n tha t t he moti on s houl d be g ra nted. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 4 2.1( a)
. Appel lan t’ s mot ion to dis mis s isgranted, and the a ppeal i s h ereby DI SM ISSE D. Hav ing dismi ss ed the appeal at appell ant’ s req uest , no moti on for re hear ing w il l be ent ertai ned, and our mandate w il l is sue forthw it h.

PERC UR IAM Me moran dum Opi nio n del ivered and filed thi s t he 12t h day

of Febr uar

y , 200 9.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Green Machine Management Corp.

v. Civil No. 05-cv-439-SM

Eileen A. Nevins

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated November 1, 2006, no objection having been filed. Defendant’s

Motion for Default Judgment is granted.

SO ORDERED.

January 29, 2007 /s/ Steven J. McAuliffe 

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Ralph Suozzo, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00439-SM Document 16 Filed 01/29/07 Page 1 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 181 (Wednesday, September 17, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 53884]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21631]



[[Page 53884]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; 
Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and 
Bioengineering, Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: November 13, 2008.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Gaithersburg Washingtonian Center, Courtyard by Marriott, 
204 Boardwalk Place, Gaithersburg, MD 20878. (Telephone Conference 
Call)
    Contact Person: John K. Hayes, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
6707 Democracy Blvd., Suite 959, Democracy Two, Bethesda, MD 20892, 
(301) 451-3398, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#533b322a362039133e323a3f7d3d3a3b7d343c25"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="eb838a928e9881ab868a8287c5858283c58c849d">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and 
Bioengineering, Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: November 13-14, 2008.
    Time: 7 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Holiday Inn Washington Dulles, Holiday Inn Washington 
Dulles Int. Airport, 45425 Holiday Drive, Dulles, VA 20166.
    Contact Person: Ruth Grossman, DDS, Scientific Review Officer, 
National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, 6707 
Democracy Boulevard, Room 960, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-8775, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ff988d908c8c929e918d8cbf929e9693d1919697d1989089"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9ff8edf0ececf2fef1edecdff2fef6f3b1f1f6f7b1f8f0e9">[email protected]</span></a>.


    Dated: September 10, 2008.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E8-21631 Filed 9-16-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Bret RAYMER, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-10510. D.C. No. CR-01-05411-REC.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted July 15, 2003.

Decided July 28, 2003.

Before REINHARDT, SILER,* and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM**

Defendant-Appellant Bret Raymer (“Raymer”) was convicted of a single count of mailing a threatening communication in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 876, a required element of which is that the communica*670tion be mailed to “another person.” It is undisputed that Raymer’s communication was mailed to the Modesto California Parking Citations Division. The government’s argument that 1 U.S.C. § 1 defines “person” to include a corporation or municipal corporation fails because the context of 18 U.S.C. § 876 makes clear that “person” means a natural person:

> Whoever knowingly so deposits or causes to be delivered as aforesaid, any communication with or without a designating mark subscribed thereto, *addressed to any other person*and containing any threat to kidnap *any person*or any threat to injure the *person of*the addressee or of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

The government has failed to prove that Raymer sent a letter to a natural person and therefore the charge must fail. *See United States v. Arias,*575 F.2d 258, 254 (9th Cir.1978) (explaining that government has the burden of proving each essential element of a crime).

REVERSED.1

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. A panel Order was filed on July 17, 2003, directing Appellant’s release from custody.

REINHARDT, Circuit Judge,

concurring.

Judge Reinhardt concurs for the reason stated in the above memorandum disposition, but would reverse on other grounds as well, including the absence of any evidence that a “threat” was made.
#### KESSLER et al. v. THOMAS CORP. et al.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

June 25, 1954.

Arnold I. Scher, Miami Beach, for appellants.

Dixon, Dejarnette & Bradford, Miami, for Thomas Corp.

Blackwell, Walker & Gray, Miama, for Nathan Sacks.

MATHEWS, Justice.

This is an appeal from two summary judgments entered in the Circuit Court of Dade County in favor of the defendants in a personal injury action.

The defendant, Sacks, was the lessee of an unenclosed outdoor lunch-counter concession which is a part of an area that includes a swimming pool, beach, cabanas and other facilities incidental to a place for swimming and bathing purposes. The cabanas are patronized by patrons and bathers-going to and from the swimming pool and the beach in wet bathing suits and in their bare feet. Thomas Corporation was the owner and lessor of the property. The lunch-counter concession was maintained,, used and operated for the benefit of those enjoying the other facilities and also to enable them to obtain a “bite to eat” or something to drink without going into a hotel to> change bathing suits for clothes and to cover bare feet with shoes in order to eat in ai hotel dining room. The plaintiff had used the particular cabana in question, the swimming pool and the beach and the lunch-counter for a period of two years. She knew the place was there, she knew the use for which it was put and she knew, or should have known, that such use would cause the floor of the lunch-counter concession to become wet.

It is alleged that the lunch-counter floor was made of somewhat slippery material and that it was more slippery when it was wet. The plaintiff was required to walk down two or three steps in order to get to the slippery floor of the covered lunch-*416counter concession. On this occasion as she reached the lunch-counter and touched the slippery, wet floor with her bare feet, she slipped and fell and claims damages for her injuries.

The above and foregoing facts were un-contradicted.

The lower court found there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and entered judgments for the defendants. This case is controlled by our opinion in the case of Andrews v. Narber, Fla., 59 So.2d 869.

Affirmed.

ROBERTS, C. J., and TERRELL and SEBRING, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

USCOC of New Hampshire

RSA #2, Inc., a Delaware

Corp., d/b/a US Cellular

v. Case No. 05-cv-327-PB

Town of Bow, NH, et al.

O R D E R

The Magistrate Judge has prepared a detailed and thoughtful

Amended Report and Recommendation addressing the arguments

presented by the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment. 

Having considered US Cellular’s objections and reviewed the

matter de novo, I agree that the disposition recommended by the

Magistrate Judge is correct. 

The Report and Recommendation is approved (Doc. No. 66).

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

June 13, 2007

cc: James Bassett, Esq.

Paul Fitzgerald Esq.

Steven Grill, Esq.

Jeffrey Spear, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00327-PB Document 73 Filed 06/13/07 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America,

Plaintiff

 

v. CR. 05-111-01-SM

Gabriel Kanakis-Hines,

 Defendant

O R D E R

Defendant Kanakis-Hines’ motion to continue the final pretrial conference

and trial is granted (document no.9). Defendant Kanakis-Hines has filed a

Waiver of Speedy Trial. Trial has been rescheduled for the month of January

2006. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial,

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Case 1:05-cr-00111-SM Document 11 Filed 10/20/05 Page 1 of 2
2

Final Pretrial Conference is rescheduled for December 16, 2005 at 

9:30 a.m. in Room 421. 

Jury selection will take place on January 4, 2006 at 9:30 a.m. 

SO ORDERED.

_________________________

 Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

October 20, 2005

cc: Jeffrey S. Levin, Esq.

Don Feith, AUSA

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:05-cr-00111-SM Document 11 Filed 10/20/05 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S INTERIM CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-04-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-02-1996
<CASH>                                          51,022
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   78,589
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,456
<INVENTORY>                                    376,531
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               520,829
<PP&E>                                         940,546
<DEPRECIATION>                                 356,683
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,758,216
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          343,626
<BONDS>                                      1,437,816
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           13,613
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   (101,916)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,758,216
<SALES>                                      2,442,373
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,481,547
<CGS>                                        1,915,022
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,915,022
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               514,050
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,973
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             107,309
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (54,834)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    19,732
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (35,102)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (35,102)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.23)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Hurlburt

v. 05-cv-203-PB

Northern NH Correctional Facility, et al.

O R D E R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated March 20, 2006, no objection having been filed.

SO ORDERED.

April 13, 2006 /s/ Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

cc: William Hurlburt, Pro se.

Daniel Mullen, Esq.

Case 1:05-cv-00203-PB Document 24 Filed 04/13/06 Page 1 of 1
Case 1:05-cv-00259-SM Document 5 Filed 07/18/05 Page 1 of 1
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AU GUST 1, 2014

NO. 03

- 13

- 00708

- CR

Rose Ann Davidson, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTI CES PEMBERTON AND RO SE

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction rendered by the district court. Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error

in the district court’s judgment of conviction . Therefore, the Court affirms the district court’s

judgment of conviction

. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pa y costs, no adjudication

of costs is made.