alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.39


                           NETWORKS ASSOCIATES, INC.

               STEPHEN C. RICHARDS EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT

         This Amendment to the Employment Agreement (the "Agreement") dated
April 4, 2001 between Networks Associates, Inc. (the "Company"), and Stephen C.
Richards ("Executive") is entered into and effective as of January 20, 2004.

         1. Amendment of Section 4(e)(i). Section 4(e)(i) of the Agreement is
hereby amended and restated to read in its entirety as set forth below:

         "(e) Severance.

                  (i) Involuntary Termination Other Than for Cause Prior to
         Change of Control. If, prior to a Change of Control, Executive's
         employment with the Company is Constructively Terminated or
         involuntarily terminated by the Company other than for Cause, then,
         subject to Executive executing and not revoking a mutual release of
         claims with the Company in the form attached as Exhibit A, and not
         materially breaching the provisions of Section 13 hereof, (A)
         Executive's Stock Options, as well as any other stock options that he
         is granted by the Company and all shares of restricted stock granted to
         Executive shall vest immediately and if applicable, the Company's right
         to repurchase all of the same such shares immediately shall lapse and
         (B) Executive shall receive continued payments of one year's Base
         Salary plus Target Bonus, less applicable withholding, in accordance
         with the Company's standard payroll practices."

         2. Amendment of Section 4(e)(ii). Section 4(e)(ii) of the Agreement is
hereby amended by inserting the following as the last clause of the first
paragraph of such section:

         "; in addition all shares of restricted stock granted to Executive
         shall vest immediately and if applicable, any right that the Company
         may have to repurchase any of such restricted stock or any of
         Executive's Stock Options immediately shall lapse."

         3. Addition of Section 4(f). A new section 4(f) is hereby added to
read in its entirety as set forth below:

         "(f) Parachute Payments. The Company shall indemnify Executive, on an
         after tax basis, for any taxes imposed on Executive pursuant to Section
         4999 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, that result from
         any compensation or payments made by the Company to Executive pursuant
         to this Agreement."

         4. No further Amendment. Other than as set forth in this Amendment, the
Agreement shall remain unchanged and shall continue in full force and effect

<PAGE>
         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Amendment, in
the case of the Company by its duly authorized officer, as of the day and year
first written above:


NETWORKS ASSOCIATES, INC.


By: /s/ Kent H. Roberts
    ---------------------

                              [STAMP]

EXECUTIVE


/s/ Stephen C. Richards
------------------------
Stephen C. Richards
EXHIBIT 32.1

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

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

 

I, Jeffrey J. Guzy, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of CoJax Oil and Gas Corporation (the "Company"), do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2019 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  

the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periods presented therein.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Sedell TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-4615.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 30, 2003.

Decided Feb. 6, 2003.

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, John A. Dusenbury, Jr., Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, L. Patrick Auld, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Eric Taylor appeals the sentence imposed by the district court following his guilty plea to multiple counts of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) (2000). Taylor’s counsel has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396,18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Counsel states there are no meritorious issues for appeal, but contends on Taylor’s behalf that his sentence violates *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Taylor has filed a pro se supplemental brief in which he challenges the district court’s sentencing guidelines calculation. Taylor also argues that his sentence violates *Apprendi.*Finding no error, we affirm.

Taylor first objects to a three-level increase in his offense level, pursuant to *U.S. Sentencing • Guidelines Manual*
      *973§ 2B3.1(b)(2)(E) (2000), for brandishing a firearm. Taylor contends the enhancement violates *Apprendi*because brandishing was not alleged in the indictment. This argument is without merit. Taylor’s sentence was well within the statutory twenty-year maximum, and is unaffected by *Apprendi. See United States v. Kinter,*235 F.3d 192, 201-02 (4th Cir.2000), *cert. denied,*532 U.S. 937, 121 S.Ct. 1393, 149 L.Ed.2d 316 (2001).

Taylor next objects to the district court’s consideration of dismissed conduct in determining his sentencing range. This court has repeatedly upheld such consideration of dismissed conduct. *See, e.g., United States v. Barber,*119 F.3d 276, 284 (4th Cir.1997). Accordingly, we find the enhancement was proper.

Pursuant to *Anders,*this court has reviewed the record for reversible error and found none. We therefore affirm Taylor’s sentence. This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, then counsel may move this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
#### AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, Pennsylvania; Transcontinental Insurance Company, Plaintiffs—Appellees, v. ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-15909. D.C. No. CV-99-20808-RMW.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted June 9, 2003.

Decided Aug. 14, 2003.

Before HILL,* T.G. NELSON, and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The Honorable James C. Hill, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

We have thoroughly reviewed the record in this case, the briefs and the able arguments of counsel. Appellant St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company (St.Paul) presents no evidence that it relied upon the original mistaken contract. Neither does it present evidence that appellees American Casualty Company of Reading, Pennsylvania and Transcontinental Insurance Company acted fraudulently or collusively or with unclean hands. St. Paul is bound by the reformation of the contract.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED for the reasons set forth in the orders of the district court filed on November 7, 2001, April 3, 2002, and April 9, 2002.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

**

 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.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2024 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2024

   To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit desecration of 
                          Veterans' memorials.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 25, 2001

  Mrs. Lowey introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit desecration of 
                          Veterans' memorials.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Veterans' Memorials Protection Act 
of 2001''.

SEC. 2. DESECRATION OF VETERANS' MEMORIALS.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 65 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 1369. Desecration of veterans' memorials
    ``(a) Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (b), 
willfully injures or commits any depredation against any structure, 
plaque, statue, or other monument on public property commemorating the 
service of any person or persons in the armed forces of the United 
States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 
years, or both, but if the damage or attempted damage does not exceed 
the sum of $1,000, the defendant shall be fined under this title or 
imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
    ``(b) The circumstance referred to in subsection (a) is that in 
committing the offense, the defendant travels or causes another to 
travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or uses the mail or an 
instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
chapter 65 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
end the following:

``1369. Desecration of veterans' memorials.''.
                                 <all>
```
Case 1:05-cv-00123-SM Document 1 Filed 04/06/05 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:05-cv-00123-SM Document 1 Filed 04/06/05 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:05-cv-00123-SM Document 1 Filed 04/06/05 Page 3 of 3
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jason Lopez, Appellant.

[808 NYS2d 648]

*386Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John A. Barone, J.), rendered February 26, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of murder in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 20 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The trial court received in evidence a nontestifying codefendant’s custodial written and stenographic statements as declarations against penal interest, and also received an audiotaped police-arranged conversation between defendant and the nontestifying codefendant. While defendant objected to this evidence as hearsay, that objection did not preserve a Confrontation Clause claim *(People v Kello,*96 NY2d 740, 743-744 [2001]; *People v Maher,*89 NY2d 456, 462-463 [1997]; *compare People v Hardy,*4 NY3d 192, 197 n 3 [2005]). Although defendant’s trial occurred before the decision of the United States Supreme Court in *Crawford v Washington*(541 US 36 [2004]), that circumstance does not affect defendant’s obligation to make a proper constitutional claim, as opposed to a claim grounded in state evidentiary law. We decline to review defendant’s constitutional arguments in the interest of justice.

Were we to review defendant’s claims concerning the codefendant’s written and videotaped statements, we would conclude that, as the People concede, those statements were inadmissible under *Crawford.*However, we find the error to be harmless, even under the standard for constitutional error *(see People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230, 241 [1975]). There was overwhelming evidence of defendant’s guilt, including his own confession, as well as testimony from two witnesses that placed him at the scene and supported the inference of accessorial liability.

There was no error, constitutional or otherwise, in admitting the audiotaped telephone conversation between defendant and his codefendant *(United States v Hendricks,*395 F3d 173, 184 [3d Cir 2005]). The codefendant’s portion of the conversation was not admitted for its truth, but to provide the context for the statements on the tape made by defendant.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Sullivan, J.P., Nardelli, Catterson, McGuire and Malone, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Braun et al

v. Civil No. 08-cv-312-JL

GT Solar International, Inc., et al

ORDER

Re: 4/21/09 Endorsed order on [73] and [75] Motions to Stay 

Ruling: the April 21, 2009 Order on [73] MOTION to Stay

Discovery in Hamel v. GT Solar under SLUSA and [75] MOTION to Stay

Discovery in Parallel State Court Action Hamel v. GT Solar Int’l,

Inc. is hereby vacated.

 

Joseph N. Laplante

U.S. District Judge

Date: April 21, 2009

cc: All Counsel

Case 1:08-cv-00312-JL Document 76 Filed 04/21/09 Page 1 of 1
----

|   | 1. | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended October 3, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|                   |   |   |                  |                                                                 |
|------------------------|--------|--------|-----------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                   |   |   |                  |
| Date: November 2, 2010 |   | By:    | /s/ KEVIN T. MICHAELS |
|                   |   |   |                  | Kevin T. MichaelsChief Financial OfficerPowerwave Technologies, Inc. |

----
IB

Union Calendar No. 376

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 2099

[Report No. 107–627]

To amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996

to provide adequate funding authorization for the Vancouver National

Historic Reserve.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 7, 2001

Mr. BAIRD introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Resources

SEPTEMBER 4, 2002

Additional sponsors: Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. INSLEE, Mr.

DICKS, Mr. LARSEN of Washington, Mr. SMITH of Washington, Mr. WU,

and Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon

SEPTEMBER 4, 2002

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole

House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed

[Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the part printed in italic]

[For text of introduced bill, see copy of bill as introduced on June 7, 2001]

A BILL

To amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 to provide adequate funding authorization for the Vancouver National Historic Reserve.
2

•HR 2099 RH

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

3 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN AUTHORIZATION FOR RESERVE.

4 Section 502(d) of division I of the Omnibus Parks and

5 Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 461 note;

6 110 Stat. 4154) is amended by striking ‘‘$5,000,000’’ and

7 all that follows through the period and inserting

8 ‘‘$15,000,000 for development costs associated with capital

9 projects consistent with the cooperative management plan,

10 except that the Federal share of such development costs shall

11 not exceed 50 percent of the total costs.’’.

Union Calendar No. 376

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 2099

[Report No. 107–627]

A BILL

To amend the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands

Management Act of 1996 to provide adequatefunding authorization for the Vancouver NationalHistoric Reserve.

SEPTEMBER 4, 2002

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union,

and ordered to be printed
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 08-cr-130-01-JD

Eric Mejias

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no.

8) filed by defendant is granted.

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), for the

reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: November 26, 2008

cc: Jessica C. Brown, AFD

Jennifer C. Davis, Esq.

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:08-cr-00130-JD Document 10 Filed 11/26/08 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Kevin Hall

v. Civil No. 08-cv-485-JL

Kevin Clark

O R D E R

The prison (Sing Sing) has failed and refused to comply with

this court’s orders and plaintiff’s authorizations to pay initial

filing fees. Plaintiff has therefore been denied any opportunity

to have his complaints considered. He is hereby granted pro se

status and his files will be preliminarily reviewed.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: April 15, 2009

cc: Kevin Hall, pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00485-JL Document 16 Filed 04/15/09 Page 1 of 1
5

A.1. Number of Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersMillions

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 3 10 25 100

Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sm

Period Total livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid1997...... 2.27 .19 .20 1.40 .15 .33 1.32 .50 .34 .11 1998...... 2.10 .15 .18 1.39 .17 .22 1.20 .45 .33 .12 1999...... 1.96 .14 .16 1.32 .16 .18 1.09 .44 .32 .11 2000...... 1.91 .11 .17 1.30 .13 .19 1.09 .44 .28 .10 2001...... 1.76 .13 .16 1.08 .13 .26 .97 .40 .28 .11 2002...... 1.95 .11 .15 1.34 .12 .23 1.11 .42 .31 .12 2003...... 1.66 .12 .12 1.14 .13 .15 .91 .36 .29 .10 2004...... 1.64 .09 .13 1.15 .13 .14 .87 .36 .29 .12 2005...... 1.47 .10 .11 1.02 .11 .14 .76 .32 .27 .12 2006...... 1.37 .11 .11 .92 .11 .11 .57 .36 .30 .13 2007...... 1.34 .09 .11 .90 .12 .13 .51 .38 .32 .14 2008...... 1.32 .07 .10 .91 .08 .15 .46 .38 .32 .16 2005: Q3... 1.52 .05 .09 1.10 .14 .14 .83 .33 .27 .10  Q4... 1.19 .12 .13 .77 .07 .09 .57 .27 .24 .11 2006: Q1... 1.53 .12 .13 1.06 .11 .11 .76 .31 .30 .16  Q2... 1.56 .10 .12 1.08 .13 .13 .62 .45 .34 .15  Q3... 1.23 .11 .08 .82 .10 .12 .48 .37 .27 .11  Q4... 1.13 .12 .10 .73 .08 .09 .42 .31 .29 .12 2007: Q1... 1.19 .08 .10 .79 .11 .12 .42 .32 .29 .17  Q2... 1.56 .08 .12 1.09 .13 .14 .63 .45 .35 .13  Q3... 1.25 .08 .08 .84 .12 .13 .49 .36 .28 .11  Q4... 1.37 .11 .15 .86 .10 .14 .50 .38 .34 .15 2008: Q1... 1.25 .09 .10 .83 .09 .13 .41 .36 .30 .18  Q2... 1.45 .07 .11 1.01 .10 .16 .54 .38 .36 .17  Q3... 1.22 .03 .08 .87 .09 .14 .45 .37 .28 .13  Q4... 1.38 .10 .12 .93 .06 .17 .46 .40 .36 .17 2009: Q1... 1.31 .09 .09 .89 .10 .15 .43 .36 .33 .19  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates aannual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
A.14. Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers, Selected Quarters

Percent except as noted

USDA Farm Production Region

NE LS CB NP AP SE DL SP MN PA

Proportion of farm loans

outstanding, 2009 Q4 survey,

region share of national

total 2.6 8.3 25.6 22.9 7.8 5.4 5.2 8.4 5.1 8.6

Sample coverage, 2009 Q4

survey, sample share of total

regional loans 8.7 4.1 14.4 36.5 19.7 7.6 8.8 6.9 8.5 31.1

Avg. loan size, 2009 Q4 survey

(thousands of dollars) 17.9 26.2 56.5 106.6 88.0 267.8 25.0 55.4 51.8 84.2

Survey date Weighted average interest rate during sample week

2004: Q4 6.2 6.4 5.2 5.4 5.1 6.0 7.5 6.4 7.0 5.2

2005: Q1 6.2 7.4 6.4 6.3 5.3 6.0 7.2 7.5 7.1 6.0

Q2 6.7 7.4 5.8 6.6 6.0 6.4 7.5 7.3 7.7 6.7

Q3 7.1 7.7 6.9 6.3 6.1 7.2 7.6 7.2 8.2 6.8

Q4 6.8 7.7 6.8 7.3 6.6 7.4 8.0 8.1 8.2 7.5

2006: Q1 7.9 8.0 7.4 7.8 7.3 7.8 8.0 8.7 8.5 7.8

Q2 8.4 8.3 7.7 7.9 7.6 8.3 8.6 8.8 9.1 7.8

Q3 8.2 8.7 8.3 8.2 7.6 8.8 8.8 9.2 9.5 9.0

Q4 9.2 8.6 7.4 8.1 8.1 8.2 8.8 8.9 9.1 8.9

2007: Q1 8.4 8.6 8.4 8.3 7.8 8.4 8.5 8.9 9.3 8.9

Q2 8.1 8.6 8.1 8.4 7.7 8.6 8.6 9.1 9.4 8.6

Q3 10.4 8.6 8.1 8.1 8.3 8.5 8.9 8.9 9.5 8.6

Q4 7.4 8.6 7.5 7.3 6.8 8.1 8.6 8.6 8.9 7.6

2008: Q1 7.3 7.8 6.4 6.3 6.2 6.4 7.8 7.2 7.8 6.3

(0.14) (0.28) (0.14) (0.63) (0.66) (0.67) (0.72) (0.21) (0.23) (0.10)

Q2 7.4 6.6 5.6 5.4 5.5 5.7 6.9 6.4 6.3 5.1

(0.30) (0.09) (0.26) (0.89) (0.49) (0.29) (0.40) (0.30) (0.34) (0.25)

Q3 5.7 7.2 5.7 5.4 5.5 5.0 7.2 6.1 6.5 5.0

(0.93) (0.19) (0.31) (1.25) (0.37) (0.72) (0.20) (0.24) (0.36) (0.36)

Q4 7.5 6.6 5.4 4.6 5.1 4.5 7.6 6.1 5.6 4.4

(0.07) (0.10) (0.52) (1.05) (0.67) (0.04) (0.72) (0.38) (0.61) (0.09)

2009: Q1 4.2 6.4 5.3 4.6 4.0 5.1 5.6 6.2 5.7 3.9

(0.34) (0.35) (0.35) (1.22) (0.95) (0.93) (0.64) (0.67) (0.32) (0.65)

Q2 4.2 6.4 4.9 4.6 3.7 4.8 6.5 5.7 5.8 4.2

(0.35) (0.16) (0.38) (1.20) (1.07) (0.19) (0.40) (0.36) (0.55) (0.25)

Q3 3.0 6.2 4.9 4.4 4.7 5.0 5.9 5.9 6.1 4.3

(0.24) (0.12) (0.44) (1.08) (0.85) (1.29) (0.19) (0.31) (0.46) (0.37)

Q4 5.3 6.2 5.2 4.5 4.0 4.2 6.5 5.6 6.0 4.5

(0.05) (0.13) (0.50) (1.27) (1.14) (1.09) (0.21) (0.47) (0.30) (0.71)

Notes. NE is Northeast, LS is Lake States, CB is Cornbelt, NP is Northern Plains, AP is Appalachia, SE is Southeast, DL is

Delta States, SP is Southern Plains, MN is Mountain States, and PA is Pacific. The numbers in parentheses are standard errors.

They are calculated from 100 replications of a bootstrap procedure (resampling of banks) in each region.

19