alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 10.18

 

AMENDMENT TO

 

MANAGEMENT SHAREHOLDER AGREEMENT

 

This Amendment dated as of January 1, 2015 (the “Amendment”) to that certain Management Shareholder Agreement, dated as of June 1, 2012 (the “Agreement”), is entered into by and among Interpool, Inc., d/b/a TRAC Intermodal®, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), Seacastle Inc., a Marshall Islands corporation (“Seacastle”), SCT Chassis Inc., a Marshall Islands corporation (“SCT Chassis”), and Christopher Annese (the “Management Investor”). Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to such terms in the Agreement.

 

WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, on June 1, 2012, Management Investor was granted a total of 40,430  restricted shares of Common Stock;

 

WHEREAS, the Company desires to grant to the Management Investor an additional 9,785  restricted shares of Common Stock (the “Supplemental Grant”) on the date hereof, subject to the terms provided herein;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

 

1.                                      The Supplemental Grant

 

(a) On January 1, 2015, the Company shall grant to the Management Investor (the “Supplemental Grant”), and the Management Investor hereby accepts, effective as of the date of such Supplemental Grant, an additional 9,785 restricted shares of Common Stock (the “Supplemental Granted Shares”).

 

(b) The Supplemental Granted Shares shall vest upon granting.

 

(c) The Supplemental Granted Shares shall be deemed Initial Restricted Shares under the Agreement and shall be subject to all applicable terms and conditions set forth in the Agreement.

 

[REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]

 











 

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

 

	
 
    	
SEACASTLE INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Name:
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Title:
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
INTERPOOL, INC.,
    
	
 
    	
d/b/a   TRAC INTERMODAL
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Name:
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Title:
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
SCT   CHASSIS INC.
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
By:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Name:
    
	
 
    	
 
    	
Title:
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
MANAGEMENT   INVESTOR
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
Address:
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
 
    	
 
    
				


 











 

Exhibit B - Page 1
No. 64903.

#### Iceland Products, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 60/4905, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fish similar in all material respects to the fish blocks the subject of *The Lee Herrmann Co., a/c The Coldwater Seafood Corp.*v. *United States*(43 Cust. Ct. 49, C.D. 2101), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
Skip NavigationUSGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS
Woods Hole Science Center
GIS Compilation of Data Collected from the Pulley Ridge Deep Coral Reef Region OF 2005-1089
OF       2005-1089

Disc       Contents

Introduction

Surficial       Geology

GIS/Visualization

Data       Catalog

References       Cited

Acknowledgments

Contacts

Figure 5, A-G. Click on figure for larger       image. Interpretation of the seafloor geology shown on top       of the shaded bathymetry. The interpretation is based on integrating the       sidescan sonar, multibeam bathymetry, and bottom photograph results (5A).       Examples of the sidescan-sonar imagery are shown in 5B-G. 
Skip       Navigation
AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and       Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological SurveyURL:       woodshole.er.usgs.gov/pubs/of2005-1089/htmldocs/fig5.htmPage Contact       Information: WHSC       WebmasterThis page last modified on Monday, 14-Jan-2013 12:50:16       EST
446 A.2d 675

#### Welch v. Volosin, Appellant.

*585Argued May 22, 1981.

Ray N. Lochner, for appellant; Saul Davis, for appellee.

Before CERCONE, P. J., MONTGOMERY and VAN der VOORT, JJ.

Order affirmed.
# C_2007202EN.01000201.xml

| 30.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/2

---

Adoption of six reference documents for the purpose of Council Directive 96/61/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control

(2007/C 202/02)

On 3 August 2007, the Commission adopted the complete texts of the reference documents on:

| — | best available techniques for large volume inorganic chemicals — solids and others, |
| --- | --- |

—

best available techniques for large volume inorganic chemicals — solids and others,

| — | best available techniques for speciality inorganic chemicals, |
| --- | --- |

—

best available techniques for speciality inorganic chemicals,

| — | best available techniques for polymers, |
| --- | --- |

—

best available techniques for polymers,

| — | best available techniques for ceramic manufacturing industry, |
| --- | --- |

—

best available techniques for ceramic manufacturing industry,

| — | best available techniques for surface treatment using organic solvents, |
| --- | --- |

—

best available techniques for surface treatment using organic solvents,

| — | best available techniques for large volume inorganic chemicals — ammonia, acids and fertilizers. |
| --- | --- |

—

best available techniques for large volume inorganic chemicals — ammonia, acids and fertilizers.

These documents are available on the Internet site: http://eippcb.jrc.es

---
March 5, 1952

No. 56460.

protest 148348-K.

#### Mussman & Shafer, Inc. *v.*United States,

It is Further Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed: That the quantity and value of the plywood contained in railroad cars SAL 15433, SAL 28616, SOU 12843, PA 95587, NYC 135149, and ATSF 147133 are identified as follows:

> *Car Total bundles Total panels Total footage Total price*

> SAL 15433_ 100 2,202 51,893 $4,317.36

> NYC 135149_ 49 1, 357 30, 543 2, 158. 03

> SOU 12843_ 114 2, 776 62, 859 4, 813. 15

> PA 95587.. 102 2, 679 59, 968 4, 346. 74

> ATSF 147133_ 109 3, 054 72, 709 5,039. 16

> SAL 28616__ 79 1,581 37,474 3,326.37
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 4846 

To provide for referral of denied applicants to the Service Academies to 

the senior military colleges. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 30, 2024 

Mr. CRUZ (for himself and Mr. WARNOCK) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To provide for referral of denied applicants to the Service 

Academies to the senior military colleges. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SERVICE ACADEMIES: REFERRAL OF DENIED 

4 APPLICANTS TO THE SENIOR MILITARY COL5 LEGES. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the 

7 date of the enactment of this Act the Secretary of Defense 

8 shall establish a system whereby a covered individual may 

9 elect to have the Secretary share information regarding 

10 such covered individual with a senior military college. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 4846 IS

1 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

2 (1) COVERED INDIVIDUAL.—The term ‘‘covered 

3 individual’’ means an individual whose application 

4 for an appointment as a cadet or midshipman at a 

5 Service Academy is denied. 

6 (2) SENIOR MILITARY COLLEGE.—The term 

7 ‘‘senior military college’’ means a school specified in 

8 section 2111a of title 10, United States Code. 

9 (3) SERVICE ACADEMY.—The term ‘‘Service 

10 Academy’’ has the meaning given such term in sec11 tion 347 of title 10, United States Code. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
No. 61389.

protests 122390-K, etc. (New York).

#### Dextar Fur Corp. and W. J. Byrnes & Co. of N. Y., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fox skins similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. O. *Brager-Larsen*(36 C. C. P. A. 1, C. A. D. 388) or *Sam Forwand Co.*v. *United States*(37 Cust. Ct. 232, C. D. 1829), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

                    The U.S. Small Business Administration North Florida District Advisory Council located in Jacksonville, Florida, will host a public federal advisory meeting on Thursday, March 29, 2007 at 12 p.m. EST. The meeting will be held at the Governor's Club located at 202                    1/2                     South Adams Street, Tallahassee, FL 32301.                 

The purpose of the meeting is to discuss board briefings and an overview of SBA loans and FY 2007 goals presented by Mark Wilson, Executive Vice President, Florida Chamber of Commerce. 

The meeting is open to the public. Anyone wishing to make an oral presentation to the Board must contact Wilfredo J. Gonzalez, District Director, in writing by letter or fax no later than Monday, March 26, 2007, in order to be placed on the agenda. Wilfredo J. Gonzalez, District Director, U.S. Small Business Administration, 7825 Baymeadows Way, Suite 100B, Jacksonville, FL 32256 telephone (904) 443-1900; or fax (904) 443-1980. 

Matthew Teague, 

Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. E7-5081 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
No. 53596.

petition 6681-R (New York).

#### B. Weinstein & Sons, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Cole, J.

The record disclosed that the circumstances surrounding entry and final appraisement of the present merchandise were identical with those in Abstract 53591. The uncontradicted testimony established that the entry of the merchandise at a less value than that found by the appraiser was without intention to defraud the revenue of the United States or to conceal or misrepresent the facts of the case or to deceive the customs officials as to the value of the merchandise. The petition was therefore granted.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Victor Woodard, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 389]

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), rendered September 2, 1993, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and burglary in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the pros*494ecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence *(see,*CPL 470.15 [5]). Additionally, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in permitting the defendant to proceed *pro se*for a portion of the trial *(see, People v Vivenzio,*62 NY2d 775; *People v McIntyre,*36 NY2d 10).

The defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental *pro se*brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Balletta, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Friedmann, JJ., concur.
March 1, 1950

No. 54103.

Suit 4600.

#### Armand Schmoll, Inc. *v.*United States.

C. D. 1097 affirmed December 12, 1949. C. A. D. 420.
Before the First Division,

March 11, 1952

No. 56462.

protests 72430-K, etc. (New York).

#### Ruben Bead Importing Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of beads similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Eitinger Bead Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(17 Cust. Ct. 56, C. D. 1020). The claim at 35 percent under paragraph 1503 was therefore sustained.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Juan Saldana, Sr., Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 960]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Vincent Vitale, J.), rendered April 15, 1993, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of murder in the second degree and burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 18 years to life and *7 1⁄2*to 15 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

At sentencing, the court announced its intention to recommend that defendant not be released on parole at the comple*240tion of his minimum term. Defendant raised no objection, and, indeed, reaffirmed that he was waiving his right to appeal, as previously agreed. Therefore, he has waived his present claim that the court violated the term of his plea bargain by, in effect, enhancing the sentence. This argument is without merit in any event, because a parole recommendation was not part of the negotiated sentence. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Wallach, Ross and Williams, JJ.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS EVERETT WILLIAMS,

Petitioner,

v.

M. KNOWLES, et al.,

Respondents.

CIV-S-04-2428 MCE DAD P

ORDER

Respondents have requested a thirty (30) day extension of time in which to file a reply to

opposition to motion to dismiss. GOOD CAUSE APPEARING, Respondents are granted an

extension of time to and including May 29, 2005, in which to file a reply to opposition to motion to

dismiss.

DATED: April 28, 2005.

DAD:4

will2428.eot

Case 2:04-cv-02428-MCE -DAD Document 14 Filed 04/28/05 Page 1 of 1
Case No. 7,928.

#### KOUNTZE v. OMAHA.

[5 Dill. 443.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Nebraska.

1879.

Municipal Taxation op Heal Property — State Court Judgments as Rules of Decision in the Federal Court.

1. As to the liability of lands within the limits of a municipal corporation to be taxed for municipal purposes, this court will follow the latest decision of the supreme court of the state on the point.

[Cited in City of Santa Rosa v. Coulter, 58 Cal. 538.]

2. No judicial inquiry is permissible into the motives of the legislators in the enactment of a particular statute.

This is a bill to restrain the sale of lands belonging to the plaintiff [Augustus Ivountze] for taxes levied thereon by the city of Omaha for municipal purposes. The gravamen of the bill is that these lands were brought within the limits and jurisdiction of the city by an act of the legislature, which was passed for the sole purpose of imposing the burdens of the expenses of the city government and of the city debt upon the plaintiff, as owner of the lauds, when, in point of fact, they were not in a situation nor of a character to be so dealt with and burdened. The proofs bring them within the description of lands exempted from municipal taxation in Bradshaw v. City of Omaha, 1 Neb. 17, and of Oliver v. Omaha [Case No. 10.499], decided in this court by Mr. Justice Miller. But very recently the supreme court of Nebraska has held that such lands are taxable. Turner v. Althaus, 0 Neb. 64. This decision has been made while this suit is pending. At the end of the opinion, however, it is said that it is not intended to apply to cases where “it clearly appears that the sole object of a legislative act extending the power of taxation by a city over a community on lands beyond its original limits is to increase its revenues only, and not for the purpose of any municipal regulations or government over the same.”

Mr. Woolworth, for plaintiff.

Mr. Thurston, for defendant.

1

 [Reported by Hon. John F. Dillon. Circuit Judge, and here reprinted by permission.]

DILLON, Circuit Judge.

In the recent case of Turner v. Althaus, 6 Neb. 64, the supreme court of the state has overruled the case of Bradshaw v. City of Omaha, 1 Neb. 17. While the latter decision remained, this court considered it as establishing a rule of decision which it was its duty to follow. Oliver v. Omaha [Case No. 10,499]. It is equally our duty to follow the rule laid down in the recent case. The same property cannot be held taxable by the one court, and not by the other.

It is inadmissible to institute a judicial inquiry into, the intention or motives of legislators in the enactment of a statute, and to make the validity of the enactment depend upon the result of such an examination. The bill must be dismissed; but, under the circumstances, no costs will be allowed to either party. Bill dismissed.
Exhibit 4.1







THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


March 24, 2015


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust, Morningstar Dividend Yield Focus
Trust, Series 9


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for Smart Trust, Morningstar Dividend Yield Focus Trust, Series 9 set forth above (the “Trust”).
We enclosed a list of the Securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our
evaluation of such Securities as of close of business on March 23, 2015, in accordance with the valuation method set forth in the
Trust Indenture and Agreement. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing the evaluations
of the Trust Securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-201752) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission with respect
to the registration of the sale of the Trust Units and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


 


Very truly yours,


 


/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO________________


Gerardo Cipriano


Vice President
No. 52069.

#### Daniel Hays Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 35785-K, etc. (New York).

*183Opinion by

Kinchelob, J.

It was stipulated that, the merchandise consists of knit fabric the same in all material respects as the fabric of which the gloves the subject of *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333) were made. The claim of the plaintiffs was therefore sustained.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-3280

___________

Nico Redding, *

 *

Plaintiff, *

 *

Anthony B. Hale, *

 * Appeal from the United States 

Appellant, * District Court for the

 * District of Minnesota.

v. *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Dennis Benson, Warden; *

Otis Sanders, Associate Warden; *

Dennis Hirch, Canteen Supervisor, *

 *

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: May 14, 1997

 Filed: June 3, 1997

___________

Before HANSEN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and MURPHY, Circuit

Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District 1

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Jonathan

G. Lebedoff, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-2-

Anthony B. Hale, a Minnesota inmate, appeals from the district court's grant of 1

summary judgment to defendants in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Contrary to Hale's

assertion, the district court's referral of Hale's case to a magistrate judge for proposed

findings and recommendations was proper, and did not require Hale's consent. See 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U.S. 136, 138-40 (1991). Having

carefully reviewed the record and the briefs, we also conlude the judgment of the

district court is correct and an extended opinion would lack precedential value.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 (the Report) of TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT CAPITAL CORP. (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, PATRICK F. CONROY, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, 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 Registrant.



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ PATRICK F. CONROY  
|Name: Patrick F. Conroy
|Date: August 8, 2006
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 27, 2014

t0519

Order 

Clerk

May 27, 2014

148508

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 148508

COA: 311239 

Saginaw CC: 11-035405-FH

SKYLER MICHAEL HARTUNG, 11-035425-FH

Defendant-Appellant. 11-035416-FJ

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 19, 2013 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### **EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

##### **CONSENTOF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatement (Form S-8 Nos. 333-106167, 333-87088, 333-60354 and 333-33382)pertaining to the 2000 Stock Incentive Plan and 2000 Employee Stock PurchasePlan of Websense, Inc. of our report dated January 16, 2004, with respect tothe consolidated financial statements and schedule of Websense, Inc. includedin the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2003.

 
|                  | /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP |   |
|-----------------------|---------------------------|--------|
|                  |                      |
|                  |                      |
| San Diego, California |                      |
| March 8, 2004         |                      |

 

1

----