alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2015 Q2 FES - EX10.3




EXHIBIT 10.3
FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
This First Amendment to Employment Agreement (this "Amendment") is made effective as of July 30, 2015 by and between Forbes Energy Services LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the "Company"), and L. Melvin Cooper an individual (the “Employee”).
WHEREAS, the parties hereto entered into that certain Employment Agreement effective as of May 1, 2008 (the “Agreement”)
WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the Agreement in order to clarify the confidentially and non-disclosure obligations of the Employee; 
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises set forth above, the parties hereby agree as follows:
		
	1.
	The following language will be added as the last paragraph of Section 11 of the Agreement:


		
	a.
	“Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, or in any agreement or communication between Employer and Employee, (a) the confidentiality and non-disclosure obligations herein shall not prohibit or restrict Employee from initiating communications directly with, or responding to any inquiry from, or providing testimony before, the SEC, any other governmental agency, any self-regulatory organization or any other state or federal regulatory authority, regarding any possible securities law violations, and (b) Employer shall not enforce or threaten to enforce, any confidentiality agreement or other similar agreement, nor take or threaten to take any other action against Employee for engaging in the types of communications described in (a) above.”


		
	2.
	Except to the extent set forth herein, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


		
	3.
	This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, and signature pages may be delivered by facsimile, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument, and shall become effective upon its execution by the parties hereto.


[Signature Page Follows]

v. -




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.  
COMPANY: 
 
FORBES ENERGY SERVICES LLC  
 
 
By:    /s/ John E. Crisp     
    John E. Crisp, President and Chief 
Executive Officer 
 
 
EMPLOYEE: 
 
L. MELVIN COOPER 
 
 
By:    /s/ L. Melvin Cooper     
    L. Melvin Cooper



v. -
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-41355 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MARCOS JASSO, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-98-CR-620-12

- - - - - - - - - - August 23, 2001 Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Counsel appointed to represent Marcos Jasso has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Jasso has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue in this direct appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

As Adopted
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Masaaki (John) Nishibori, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of CAI International, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of CAI International, Inc.

Date: March 16, 2009



By:

/S/    MASAAKI (JOHN)
NISHIBORIMasaaki (John) Nishibori President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Anthony Mastroianni, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

[827 NYS2d 247]

In a claim to recover damages for personal injuries, the claimant appeals from (1) a decision of the Court of Claims (Marin, J.), dated August 3, 2005, and (2) a judgment of the same court dated September 6, 2005, which, after a nonjury trial, and upon the decision, is in favor of the defendant and against him dismissing the claim.

Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, as no *675appeal lies from a decision *(see Schicchi v J.A. Green Constr. Corp.,*100 AD2d 509 [1984]); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.

In reviewing a judgment entered after a nonjury trial, this Court “may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking into account in a close case ‘the fact that the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses’ ” *(Northern Westchester Professional Park*Assoc. *v Town of Bedford,*60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983], quoting *York Mtge. Corp. v Clotar Constr. Corp.,*254 NY 128, 133-134 [1930]). “If the credible evidence in the record indicates that a different finding from that of the trial court is not unreasonable, this Court must weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony as well as conflicting inferences which may be drawn therefrom” *(Matter of Fasano v State of New York,*113 AD2d 885, 888 [1985]; *see We’re Assoc. Co. v Rodin Sportswear,*288 AD2d 465 [2001]; *U.S. No. 1 Laffey Real Estate v Hanna,*215 AD2d 552 [1995]).

The Court of Claims correctly determined that the proof adduced at trial failed to establish that the defendant had constructive notice of the alleged defect upon which the claimant fell. “To constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit the defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it” *(Gordon v American Museum of Natural History,*67 NY2d 836, 837 [1986]; *see Perlongo v Park City 3 & 4 Apts., Inc.,*31 AD3d 409, 410 [2006]). Here, assuming that the testimony and photographic evidence adduced by the claimant was sufficient to establish the existence of a defect, that evidence failed to support the speculative assertion of the claimant’s expert that the alleged defect existed for a sufficient length of time before the accident for the defendant’s personnel to have observed and corrected it. Accordingly, we discern no basis for disturbing the judgment appealed from.

In view of the foregoing, we need not consider the claimant’s remaining contentions. Santucci, J.E, Krausman, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JAMES L. JONES, Jr.,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

RECONTRUST COMPANY, a wholly

owned subsidiary of Bank of America; et

al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 13-16481

D.C. No. 3:12-cv-08079-FJM

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Frederick J. Martone, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 10, 2015** 

Before: FARRIS, WARDLAW, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

James L. Jones, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s summary

judgment in his diversity action seeking to quiet title. We have jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Owen, 519

FILED

MAR 20 2015

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
F.3d 1035, 1037 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment in Jones’s quiet title

action because Jones failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether

the mortgagee’s interest in the subject property had been satisfied. See Farrell v.

West, 114 P.2d 910, 911 (Ariz. 1941) (where “it appears there is an unsatisfied

balance due to a defendant-mortgagee, or his assignee, the court will not quiet the

title until and unless [plaintiff] pays off such mortgage lien”).

We deny Jones’s request for judicial notice set forth in his opening brief.

We reject Jones’s contentions regarding subject matter jurisdiction and due

process in the district court.

AFFIRMED.

2 13-16481
Exhibit 31.1

                    Certification of Chief Executive Officer

I, Philip Verges, as the Chief Executive Officer of NewMarket  Technology,  Inc.
(the "Company"), certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of the Company;

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

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

4. I am responsible for  establishing  and maintaining  disclosure  controls and
procedures  (as defined in Exchange Act Rules  13a-15(e) and  15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:

         (a) Designed such disclosure  controls and  procedures,  or caused such
disclosure  controls and  procedures  to be designed  under my  supervision,  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 report is being prepared;

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

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

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

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

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


Date: May 21, 2007                                      /s/ Philip Verges

                                                        ------------------------
                                                        Philip Verges
                                                        Chief Executive Officer
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 on Form 10-QSB of Venture Catalyst Incorporated (the
Company) for the Quarterly Period Ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kevin McIntosh, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as 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; and

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



By:

/s/ KEVIN MCINTOSHKevin McIntoshSenior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer(Principal Financial Officer)


Dated: May 15, 2006
Exhibit
32(d)


CERTIFICATE
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


FOR PPL
ENERGY SUPPLY, LLC'S 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2009





In
connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PPL Energy Supply, LLC (the
"Company") for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Covered Report"), I,
the principal financial officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
hereby certify that:





·
            The
      Covered Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
    and·
            The
      information contained in the Covered Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      the Company.











Date:  May
      1, 2009
            /s/  Paul
      A. FarrPaul
      A. Farr
              Executive
      Vice President
              PPL
      Energy Supply, LLC








A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.1


                    CERTIFIED WRITTEN STATEMENT ACCOMPANYING
                    ----------------------------------------
                           PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS
                           --------------------------

                          (PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350)
                          ----------------------------


The undersigned, Cody C. Ashwell, Chief Executive Officer, and Richard A.
Gartrell, Chief Financial Officer, of Javo Beverage Company, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), each hereby certify that--

the accompanying periodic report containing financial statements filed by the
Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a)); and

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this certificate, which
accompanies the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the annual period
ended December 31, 2002.



Dated: April 15, 2003             /s/ Cody C. Ashwell
                                  --------------------------------------------
                                  Cody C. Ashwell, Chief Executive Officer and
                                    Chairman of the Board



Dated: April 15, 2003             /s/ Richard A. Gartrell
                                  --------------------------------------------
                                  Richard A. Gartrell, Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>




                                                                    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

In connection with the Quarterly report of Venture Catalyst Incorporated (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2003 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, L. Donald Speer, II, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant
to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:


         1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


                                     By:        /s/ L. DONALD SPEER, II
                                         --------------------------------------
                                                    L. Donald Speer, II
                                              Chairman of the Board and Chief
                                                     Executive Officer

Dated:  November 13, 2003
##### 



Exhibit 99.1 (EXTENDICARE LOGO) NEWS RELEASEFOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 25, 2004 Extendicare Inc. Announces Normal Course Issuer Bid MARKHAM, ONTARIO  Extendicare Inc. (TSX: EXE.MV and EXE.SV; NYSE: EXE)
announced that it has received the approval of the Toronto Stock Exchange (the
TSX) to make a normal course issuer bid (the Bid) for up to 2,800,000 of
its Subordinate Voting Shares (EXE.SV), 590,000 of its Multiple Voting Shares
(EXE.MV), and 19,000 of its Class II Preferred Shares, Series 1 (EXE.PR.E). The
shares sought represent just less than 5% of each of the Companys Subordinate
Voting Shares, Multiple Voting Shares and Class II Preferred Shares, Series 1
outstanding. All shares purchased under the Bid will be cancelled. The Bid will commence on November 29, 2004 and will terminate on the earlier
of: (i) November 28, 2005, and (ii) the date on which the maximum number of
each of the respective shares that may be purchased by the Company pursuant to
the Bid have been purchased. The timing of the purchases under the Bid is at
the discretion of the Company. The Company intends to purchase the shares
solely by means of open market transactions, through the facilities of the TSX
in accordance with the rules and policies of the TSX, while the Bid is
outstanding. The price to be paid by the Company for the shares will be the
market price of the shares at the time of purchase. As at the close of business on November 17, 2004, the Company had outstanding
56,875,361 Subordinate Voting Shares (one vote per share), 11,911,692 Multiple
Voting Shares (10 votes per share), which are convertible into Subordinate
Voting Shares on a one-for-one basis and 382,979 Class II Preferred Shares,
Series 1. As of November 17, 2004, under the terms of its November 2003 Normal Course
Issuer Bid, which expires on November 26, 2004, the Company had purchased
234,200 Subordinate Voting Shares at an average cost of $13.53 per share and
12,700 Multiple Voting Shares at an average cost of $13.36 per share. The Board of Directors of the Company has authorized the Bid because it
believes it is an appropriate use of the Companys funds to purchase shares
when, in the opinion of management, the value of such shares exceeds their
trading price. Such purchases are expected to benefit shareholders who continue
to hold shares by increasing the value of their equity interest in the Company. For further information, contact: Extendicare Inc.
Christopher Barnes
Manager, Investor Relations
Phone: (905) 470-5483
Fax: (905) 470-4003
Email: cbarnes@extendicare.com Visit Extendicares Website @ www.extendicare.com - 30 -
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

MATTHEW CRAIG RUBIN,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-50261

D.C. No. 2:04-cr-00515-RGK

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

R. Gary Klausner, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 25, 2014** 

Before: HAWKINS, TALLMAN, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. 

Matthew Craig Rubin appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 78-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

conducting transactions in criminally derived property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

FILED

JUN 27 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
§ 1957, and witness tampering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1). We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. 

Rubin contends that the district court erred by denying his request for a

downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1

despite his sentencing enhancement for obstruction of justice under section 3C1.1. 

We review the district court’s determination of whether a defendant has accepted

responsibility for clear error. See United States v. Rosas, 615 F.3d 1058, 1066 (9th

Cir. 2010). The district court did not clearly err in finding that Rubin’s obstruction

of justice, including his flight to Mexico while sentencing was pending in this case,

was inconsistent with acceptance of responsibility. See id. at 1066-67. 

AFFIRMED. 

2 13-50261
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Prospero ACOSTA-VALENZUELA, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-10731.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*136Submitted Oct. 16, 2006.*

Filed Oct. 18, 2006.

Mark Wayne Reeves, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Yuma, AZ, Plaintiff-Appel-lee.

Prospero Aeosta-Valenzuela, California City, CA, pro se.

Marc J. Victor, Esq., Victor *&*Hall, PLC, Mesa, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: T.G. NELSON, W. FLETCHER, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Prospero Aeosta-Valenzuela appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and 30-month sentence for illegal re-entry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), as enhanced by (b)(2).

Pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), counsel for Aeosta-Valenzuela has filed a brief stating there are no grounds for relief, and a motion to withdraw as counsel of record. No pro se supplemental brief or answering brief has been filed.

Because our independent review of the record pursuant to *Penson v. Ohio,*488 U.S. 75, 82-83, 109 S.Ct. 346, 102 L.Ed.2d 300 (1988), indicates that Acosta-Valenzuela knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal and was sentenced within the terms of the plea agreement, we enforce the waiver and dismiss the appeal. *See United States v. Nguyen,*235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000) (stating that an appeal waiver is valid when it is entered knowingly and voluntarily).

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED. The appeal is DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.