alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4.18





ADDENDUM


to


the Management Agreement dated 18/06/2012


(the "Management Agreement")





Between


TRITION SHIPPING LIMITED


of Hong Kong


(as Owner)





And





ALLSEAS MARINE S.A.


of Liberia


(as Manager)





In respect of the management of the Vessel OOCL HONG KONG (the "Vessel")





Notwithstanding the relevant provisions of the Management Agreement, it is this, 18th day of September 2012, mutually agreed between the Owner and the Manager that in the event that the Management Agreement is terminated in accordance with Clause 12.05, then the provisions of the Compensation Agreement between the Manager and Box Ships Inc.dated 12/09/2012, copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, forming an integral partof this Agreement, or any renewal thereof shall be applied."





All other fees, terms, conditions and provisions of the Management Agreement remain unaltered and in full force and effect.





IN WITNESS WHEREOFthe parties have signed this Addendum this 18th day of September, 2012.


FOR THE OWNER
FOR THE MANAGER/s/ Maria Stefanou
/s/  George SkrimizeasMARIA STEFANOU
GEORGE SKRIMIZEASAttorney-in-fact
Attorney-in-fact
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

SONTAY T. SMOTHERMAN, 

 

 Petitioner, Civ. No. 2:14-cv-972 

 Crim. No. 2:12-cr-055(3) 

 v. Judge Frost 

 Magistrate Judge King 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Respondent. 

ORDER 

 Petitioner filed a motion to vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on July 23, 2014. 

Motion to Vacate, ECF No. 270. On April 24, 2015, the Magistrate Judge denied Petitioner’s 

Motion for Discovery, ECF No. 281, and recommended that Petitioner’s Motion for Summary 

Judgment, ECF No. 276, and Motion for Relief from Judgment, ECF No. 280, be denied and that 

the Motion to Vacate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, ECF No. 270, be dismissed. Order and 

Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 287. Petitioner objected to the recommendation on May 

4, 2015. Objection, ECF No. 289. On May 6, 2015, this Court overruled Petitioner’s objection, 

adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and dismissed the Motion to Vacate. Order, 

ECF No. 291. Petitioner thereafter filed amended objections to the Magistrate Judge’s 

recommendation, Amended Objections, ECF No. 292, a Motion for Plain Error Review to Report 

and Recommendation, ECF No. 293, and an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s denial of 

discovery in this case. Objection, ECF No. 294. 

 The Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the action be dismissed was based on the 

fact that the claims raised in Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate had been presented to and rejected by 

the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on direct appeal. In dismissing this case, 

Case: 2:12-cr-00055-GLF-TPK Doc #: 295 Filed: 05/11/15 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 

this Court agreed with that conclusion. Nothing stated in Petitioner’s subsequent objections to 

the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation persuades the Court that the case was erroneously 

dismissed. 

 Petitioner has also now objected to the Magistrate Judge’s denial of his request to 

conduct discovery. Because the order of the Magistrate Judge was neither clearly erroneous nor 

contrary to law, in light of the recommended dismissal of the action, Petitioner’s objection to the 

Magistrate Judge’s order in this regard is without merit. 

 Petitioner’s Amended Objections, ECF No. 292, Motion for Plain Error Review to Report 

and Recommendation, ECF No. 293, and Objection to the Order of the Magistrate Judge denying 

Petitioner’s request for discovery, ECF No. 294, are therefore DENIED. The Clerk is 

DIRECTED to remove these motions, as well as Petitioner’s Motion to Reconsider, ECF No. 

288, from the Court’s pending motions list. 

 /s/ GREGORY L. FROST 

 GREGORY L. FROST 

 United States District Judge 

Case: 2:12-cr-00055-GLF-TPK Doc #: 295 Filed: 05/11/15 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CEO PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Trinity CapitalCorporation, a New Mexico corporation (the “Company”), for the period endedJune 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), William C. Enloe, as President and ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

(1)          The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/  William C. Enloe                  |   |
|----------------------------------------|--------|
| William  C. Enloe                      |
| President  and Chief Executive Officer |
| August  9, 2005                        |

 

1

----
(Reap. Dec. 8948)

Entry No. 636.

#### Munsingwear, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided July 25, 1957)

*John B. Faegre, Jr.,*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Fobd, Judge:

The appeal listed above has been submitted for decision upon a stipulation to the effect that the market value or price at or about the date of exportation of the subject merchandise, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation in the usual wholesale quantities, in the *607ordinary course of trade, including all costs and charges specified in section 402 of the Tariff Act of 1930, was as follows:

> Item No. HA-1124 Can. $13.95 per doz. pair, net packed

> Item No. HA-1120 Can. $13.95 per doz. pair, net packed

It has been further agreed that there was no higher export value for such or similar merchandise.

Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact, I find the proper dutiable foreign value for said merchandise to he as set out above. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 

EASTERN DIVISION 

VICTOR H. DURAN-GAMBOA, 

 CASE NO. 2:13-CV-1162 

 Petitioner, CRIM. NO. 2:12-CR-74(2) 

 JUDGE JAMES L. GRAHAM 

 v. MAGISTRATE JUDGE ABEL 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Respondent. 

ORDER 

 On January 29, 2015, Petitioner Victor H. Duran-Gamboa filed a motion to withdraw his 

motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

 Petitioner’s motion, ECF 176, is GRANTED. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation recommending dismissal of this case, ECF 142, is ADOPTED and 

AFFIRMED. 

The motion to vacate, set aside or correct sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, ECF 

141, is hereby DISMISSED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Date: February 2, 2015 _____s/James L. Graham_______ 

 JAMES L. GRAHAM 

United States District Judge 

Case: 2:12-cr-00074-JLG-MRA Doc #: 177 Filed: 02/02/15 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
remotemdxs8082208ex4b.htm


    
      

      

    

     

    Name

    Street
Address

    City,
State and Zip Code

    


    Date:

    


    


    Re:           Stock
Award

    


    Dear___________:

    


    In
consideration for your past and future advice, services and work as the
___________ of RemoteMDx, Inc., the Board of Directors of the Company has agreed
to grant to you, as of the date of this letter, an award of _____________ shares
of Common stock of the Company.  We will promptly instruct our counsel
to make the necessary filing s to have the shares issued as soon as
possible.

    


    Thank you
again for your valuable services to the Company.

    


    Sincerely,

    RemoteMDx,
Inc.

    


    


    By:_________________

    Title:________________


    Accepted
and Agreed:

    


    ___________________

    


    ___________________
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v GERALD E. GREMILLION, Private, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

18 USCMA 568, 40 CMR 280

*569No. 22,039

September 12, 1969

*Commander E. M. Fulton, Jr.,*JAGC, USN, and *Lieutenant Scott M. Feldman,*JAGC, USNR, were on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*"Captain Patricia A. Murphy,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Darden, Judge:

In this case,, we.are ashed to evaluate the adequacy of the law officer’s inquiry into the providence of the accused’s plea of guilty to wrongfully possessing marihuana, in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 934.

The rather lengthy inquiry is deficient in that it did not delineate the elements of the offense. This omission now, however, need not result in reversible error. United States v Care, 18 USCMA 535, 40 CMR 247. In light of the accused’s insistence that he knew the elements of the offense to which he pleaded guilty and his persistence in maintaining that plea, we are satisfied • that the inquiry— as a whole — -meets requisite demands. United States v Care, supra. The procedure followed in this case would not meet the standard that must apply to cases tried thirty days after the decision in *Care.*

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

Ferguson, Judge:

I concur in the result. See my dissent in United States v Care, 18 USCMA 535, 40 CMR 247.
AMENDMENT #2 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT





This Amendment, entered into on August 8, 2011, hereby amends certain sections of the Employment Agreement dated as of August 3, 2010 by and between Bill Glaser (the “Executive”) and OVERNEAR, INC., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), modifies the original Employment Agreement as follows:





4.
Salary and Bonus.





(a)           Salary.  During Executive’s employment under this Agreement, the Company shall pay Executive a salary at the rate of $180,000 per annum (the “Salary”).  Such Salary shall be subject to withholding under applicable law, shall be prorated for partial years and shall be payable in periodic installments not less frequently than monthly in accordance with the Company’s usual practice for its executive officers as in effect from time to time.





The Salary shall increase to $250,000 per annum if either: (1) the Company raises $5 million of debt or equity financing in the aggregate (i.e., in one or more financing transactions) after the date hereof; or (2) the Company recognizes $5 million in cumulative gross revenues (i.e., the sum of all revenues recognized since commencement of operations).





The Salary shall increase to $360,000 per annum if either: (1) the Company raises $10 million of debt or equity financing in the aggregate (i.e., in one or more financing transactions, and including transactions counted towards the $5 million target in the immediately preceding paragraph) after the date hereof; or (2) the Company recognizes $10 million in cumulative gross revenues (i.e., the sum of all revenues recognized since commencement of operations)..





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first set forth above.





OVERNEAR, INC.





By:
/s/ Fred E. TannousName:
Fred E. TannousTitle:
Director and Chief Executive Officer





/s/ Bill GlaserBill Glaser
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 2:12-CR-155 (1)

JUDGE SMITH

GERARDO CONTREAS-GAMA,

Date of Original Judgment:

Defendant. October 4, 2013 

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion to Reduce Sentence, pursuant

to 18 U.S.C. §3582(c)(2), in an “Agreed Disposition Case.” (Doc. 176). Defendant was

originally sentenced on September 25, 2013 to 70 months imprisonment for conspiracy to

possess with intent to distribute over 1,000 grams or more of heroin. Defendant’s advisory

sentencing guideline range was 108 to 135 months, based on an offense level 31 and criminal

history category I. 

On November 1, 2014, the United States Sentencing Commission promulgated Guideline

Amendment 782, which reduced by two levels the offense levels assigned to the drug quantities

set forth in §2D1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, as well as parallel changes for

the listed chemicals found in §2D1.11. Defendants who are currently imprisoned for these drug

offenses are eligible for retroactive application of the guidelines as long as they meet certain

eligibility criteria.

The parties agree that the Defendant meets the Sentencing Commission’s eligibility

requirements for the retroactive application of Amendment 782 to his case. After considering

the original guideline range, the extent of any downward departure, the circumstances of

Defendant’s case, and his behavior while incarcerated, the parties jointly recommend a reduction

Case: 2:12-cr-00155-GCS-NMK Doc #: 183 Filed: 03/04/15 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
of Defendant’s sentence to a term of incarceration of 57 months. 

Whether to grant a reduction of sentence pursuant to §3582(c)(2) is within the discretion

of the court. United States v. Ursery, 109 F.3d 1129, 1137 (6th Cir. 1997). In considering

whether a reduced sentence is appropriate, this court must consider the factors in 18 U.S.C.

§3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable. See §3582(c)(2). 

Upon consideration of Defendant’s motion, the statutory sentencing factors set forth in

§3553(a), and the joint recommendation of the parties, the Court concludes that a reduction of

Defendant’s term of incarceration is appropriate in light of the reduction in the applicable

guideline range. The sentence of 70 months incarceration previously imposed in this case is

hereby reduced to a term of incarceration of 57 months. Under Amendment 782, Defendant’s

release date shall be no earlier than November 1, 2015. Except as provided above, all other

provisions of the judgment previously entered in this case shall remain in effect.

The Clerk shall remove Document 176 from the Court’s pending motion’s list.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 /s/ George C. Smith 

GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Order Date: March 4, 2015

Effective Date: November 1, 2015

-2-

Case: 2:12-cr-00155-GCS-NMK Doc #: 183 Filed: 03/04/15 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
# C_2008075EN.01001201.xml

| 26.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 75/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 75/12

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

25 March 2008

(2008/C 75/05)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,5569 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 155,90 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4597 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,78105 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4190 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5728 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 118,15 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,0865 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,455 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 256,49 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6965 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,5310 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,7165 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 32,663 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,9409 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,7036 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5870 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 12,1126 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9376 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,1527 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 522,65 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 12,5875 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,9680 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2602 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 300,13 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,9782 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 64,425 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 36,8680 |
| THB | Thai baht | 49,042 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,7034 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,6464 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,5569

JPY

Japanese yen

155,90

DKK

Danish krone

7,4597

GBP

Pound sterling

0,78105

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4190

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5728

ISK

Iceland króna

118,15

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,0865

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,455

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

256,49

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6965

PLN

Polish zloty

3,5310

RON

Romanian leu

3,7165

SKK

Slovak koruna

32,663

TRY

Turkish lira

1,9409

AUD

Australian dollar

1,7036

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5870

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

12,1126

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9376

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,1527

KRW

South Korean won

1 522,65

ZAR

South African rand

12,5875

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,9680

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2602

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 300,13

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,9782

PHP

Philippine peso

64,425

RUB

Russian rouble

36,8680

THB

Thai baht

49,042

BRL

Brazilian real

2,7034

MXN

Mexican peso

16,6464

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,101
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,852
<ALLOWANCES>                                       992
<INVENTORY>                                     13,347
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                39,709
<PP&E>                                          21,216
<DEPRECIATION>                                  10,157
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  56,919
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,405
<BONDS>                                         14,882
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,593
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,039
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    56,919
<SALES>                                         93,303
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                93,303
<CGS>                                           81,240
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   90,249
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   547
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 855
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,476
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,016
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,460
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,460
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.28
        

</TABLE>
#### R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7546.

Entry No. 767496, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, May 7, 1946, etc.

Certified May 7, 1946, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., June 11, 1946.

(Decided February 19, 1948)

*John R. Rafter*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawbence, Judge:

It has been agreed between the parties hereto that the issues-herein relating to the above-mentioned merchandise are the same in all material respects as those decided in *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 183, C. A. D. 334, and that the record therein may be incorporated herein.

Upon the agreed facts I find the export value, as defined in section 402 (d), Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for determining the values of said merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement enumerated on the annexed schedule which is marked “A” and made part of this decision, and that such, values are the appraised values, less additions made by importer on entry because of advances by the-appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
MEMORANDUM 

DATE: May 8, 2015

TO: Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

FROM: Ray Saracino, EPA Region 9

SUBJECT: May 7, 2015, Meeting with the Concentrating Solar Power Alliance (CSPA)

Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants

SUMMARY

A meeting was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on May 7, 2015 to 

discuss the proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The Clean Power Plan for 

Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014 and published in the Federal Register on 

June 18, 2014.

ATTENDEES

See attachment sign in sheet

Attachments

Concentrating Solar Power Alliance Meeting - presentation 050715

Concentrating Solar Power Alliance Meeting - sign in sheet 050715
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 79 

Expressing the sense of Congress that no United States assistance should 

be provided directly to the Palestinian Authority if any representative 

political party holding a majority of parliamentary seats within the Palestinian Authority maintains a position calling for the destruction of Israel. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 1, 2006 

Mr. THUNE (for himself, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. TALENT, Mr. BROWNBACK, 

Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. VOINOVICH, and Mr. JOHNSON) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress that no United States 

assistance should be provided directly to the Palestinian 

Authority if any representative political party holding 

a majority of parliamentary seats within the Palestinian 

Authority maintains a position calling for the destruction 

of Israel. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that no 

3 United States assistance should be provided directly to the 

4 Palestinian Authority if any representative political party 

5 holding a majority of parliamentary seats within the Pal-
2 

•SCON 79 ATS

1 estinian Authority maintains a position calling for the de2 struction of Israel. 

Æ
Case: 2:11-cv-00549-EAS-NMK Doc #: 25 Filed: 08/06/12 Page: 1 of 9  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00549-EAS-NMK Doc #: 25 Filed: 08/06/12 Page: 2 of 9  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00549-EAS-NMK Doc #: 25 Filed: 08/06/12 Page: 3 of 9  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00549-EAS-NMK Doc #: 25 Filed: 08/06/12 Page: 4 of 9  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00549-EAS-NMK Doc #: 25 Filed: 08/06/12 Page: 5 of 9  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00549-EAS-NMK Doc #: 25 Filed: 08/06/12 Page: 6 of 9  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00549-EAS-NMK Doc #: 25 Filed: 08/06/12 Page: 7 of 9  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00549-EAS-NMK Doc #: 25 Filed: 08/06/12 Page: 8 of 9  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00549-EAS-NMK Doc #: 25 Filed: 08/06/12 Page: 9 of 9  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-12T12:58:11-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO