alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 4.48

    

     

    

    Addendum No. 1

      to the Memorandum of Agreement 4th July 2018

      (the "MOA")

      in respect of "MONT GELE" (the "Vessel")

      between

      VLGC DELTA OWNING LTD. of Marshall Islands (the "Sellers")

      and

      GLOBAL MERIDIAN HOLDINGS LIMITED of Bermuda (the "Original Buyers")

    

    

    _______________

    

    

    
      
        	1.	
                The Original Buyers hereby nominate: -

              


      

    

    MERIDIAN 12 LIMITED (the "Buyers")

        Registered Office: Canon's Court, 22 Victorica Street, Hamilton, HM 12, Bermuda

    as the final buyers to complete the purchase and delivery of the Vessel as per the MOA and the Buyers
        hereby accept the nomination.

    
      
        	

              	2.	
                The Sellers hereby agree to the above nomination.

              


      

    

    
      
        	

              	3.	
                The Buyers hereby assume all the rights and oligations of the Original Buyers under the MOA.

              


      

    

    
      
        	

              	4.	
                The Original Buyers hereby guarantee the due and punctual performance of the Buyers' obligations under the MOA.

              


      

    

    
      
        	

              	5.	
                In Line 8 of the MOA the "Year of Build" is amended from "2017" to the correct "2018."

              


      

    

    
      
        	

              	6.	
                Except as otherwise provided herein, all other terms and conditions of the MOA shall remain unchanged and in full force.

              


      

    

    
      
        	

              	7.	
                This Addendum No. 1 shall be governed by and construed in accordance with English law and Clause 16 (Law and Arbitration) of the MOA shall apply to this
                    Addendum No. 1 as it set out herein in full (mutatis mutandis).

              


      

    

    
      
        	

              	8.	
                This Addendum No. 1 may be entered into counterparts which when taken together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

              


      

    

    Date: 16th July 2018

    	/s/ Georgios A. Kaklamanos 	 	/s/ Phillip Anderson 
	
            For and on behalf of

                the Sellers

          	 	
            For and on behalf of

                the Original Buyers

          
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	/s/ Phillip Anderson

          	 	 
	
            For and on behalf of

                the Sellers
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-0151

_____________________________

WENDY HABEGGER,

Appellant,

v.

UNIVERSITY OF WEST FLORIDA,

BOARD OF TRUSTEES, DAVID 

DICKEY, and WEAR TV

CHANNEL 3,

Appellees.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

W. Joel Boles, Judge.

April 3, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, ROBERTS, and WETHERELL, JJ., concur.
2

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________

Cecile M. Scoon of Peters and Scoon, Panama City, for Appellant.

Larry A. Matthews and Raymond F. Higgins, III of Matthews & 

Higgins, LLC, Pensacola, for Appellees.
#### Jose H. CALDERON, Appellant v. Eric BROWN, Judge, Franklin County, et al., Appellees.

No. 15-7029

September Term, 2015

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed: 07/26/2016

Jose H. Calderon, London, OH, Pro Se.

BEFORE: Kavanaugh and Srinivasan, Circuit Judges, and Ginsburg, Senior Circuit Judge

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on appellant’s brief. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing and the motion to appoint counsel, it is

ORDERED that the motion to appoint counsel be denied. In civil cases, appellants are not entitled to appointment of counsel when they have not demonstrated any likelihood of success on the merits. It is

FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order, filed January 15, 2015, be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed the com*805plaint, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, on the grounds that: (1) the district court lacked jurisdiction to review the decisions of another court, see D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476, 103 S.Ct. 1303, 75 L.Ed.2d 206 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelty Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16, 44 S.Ct. 149, 68 L.Ed. 362 (1923) (U.S. district courts have no jurisdiction over challenges to state court decisions); (2)' the judge was immune from suit for money damages, see Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 9-10, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991); and (3) appellant’s vague allegations against the two Ohio-based defendants did not meet the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a), see Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir.2004).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
      This Scheudle contains summary financial information extracted from the
      Financial Statements included in the Company's September 30, 1996 report
      on Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         11,534,906
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               11,604,177
<PP&E>                                         634,672
<DEPRECIATION>                                 133,757
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 12,346,886
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          365,849
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    1,697
<COMMON>                                       8,192
<OTHER-SE>                                     11,971,148
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   12,346,886
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               148,781
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               5,947,059
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,798,278)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,798,278)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,798,278)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.76)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.76)
        


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.2


CERTIFICATIONS


I, G. Larry Lawrence, certify that:





1.  I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of Natural Gas Services Group, Inc.; and





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.








/s/ G. Larry Lawrence


G. Larry Lawrence


Chief Financial Officer and Vice President (Principal Accounting Officer)





April 23, 2019
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 21

- 40797 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,** Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus **Jose Santos Torres**

**- Mata,**  Defendant

— Appellant

**.**

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 2:21

- CR

- 395

- 1

Before **Southwick, Oldham,** and **Wilson,** Circuit Judges

. **Per Curiam :**  * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Santos Torres

- Mata has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Torres

- Mata has not filed a response.

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED April 6, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 21-40797 Document: 00516270055 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/06/2022No. 21

- 40797

2 We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for ap pellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s 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

. Case: 21-40797 Document: 00516270055 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/06/2022
From: Terri Hollingsworth/RTP/USEPA/US

To: Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov

Cc: James Hirtz/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Bill Schrock/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,

Dave Guinnup/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 12/01/2011 03:41 PM

S ubject: Draft Risk Assessment Report for the Pulp and Paper Source

Category

Cortney,

Bill Schrock just informed me that the SAN 5469

- RTR NESHAP for the

Pulp and Paper Industry has been transmitted to OMB. In conjunction

with this proposa l, I am forwarding the Draft Risk Assessment Report for the Pulp

and Paper Source Category for your review.

I will be out of the office beginning December 2nd and returning December 12th.

If you have any comments or questions about the risk assessment, p lease contact

Jim Hirtz with our Air Toxics Assessment Group. He is the lead on the risk

assessment and will be able to answer your questions.

(See attached file: Pulp & Paper Risk Assessment draft OMB.doc)

(See attached file: Appendix 1.pdf)

(See attac hed file: Appendix 2.pdf)

(See attached file: Appendix 3.pdf)

(See attached file: Appendix 4 multipathway 10

- 25

- 11.pdf)

(See attached file: Appendix 5 Detailed Risk Modeling Results_111711.pdf)

(See attached file: Appendix 6 AcuteImpacts_Refined_111711.pdf )

(See attached file: Appendix 7 Centroid Changes_111711.pdf)

(See attached file: App8_COS_111711.pdf)

----------------------------------------------------------------- Terri Hollingsworth

Air Toxics Assessment Group

Health & Environmental Impact Divisio n, C539

- 02 Office of Air Quality Planning &

Standards U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

phone: 919

- 541

- 5623

fax: 919

- 541

- 0840

e

- mail: hollingsworth.terri@epa.gov
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-6510

OLUDARE OGUNDE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-00-404-AM) Submitted: October 31, 2001 Decided: December 20, 2001 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Oludare Ogunde, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Oludare Ogunde appeals from the district court’s order denying Ogunde’s motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no reversible error. Ogunde failed to establish any grounds on which the motion could be granted. In re Burnley , 988 F.2d 1, 3 (4th Cir. 1992). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. United States v. Holland , 214 F.3d 523, 527 (4th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
#### Frank Dwight CARTER, Petitioner-Appellant v. Lorie DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee

No. 16-11296 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 17, 2017

Frank Dwight Carter, Pro Se

Before DENNIS, SOUTHWICK, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Frank Dwight Carter, former Texas prisoner # 561942, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in this appeal of the sua sponte dismissal of his case. The motion is a challenge to the district court’s certification that the appeal is not taken in good faith. *See Baugh v. Taylor,*117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

Carter fails to address the district court’s reasons for finding his case to be frivolous. Pro se briefs are afforded liberal construction. *See Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Nevertheless, when an appellant fails to identify any error in the district court’s analysis, it is the same as if the appellant had not appealed the decision. *Brinkmann v. Dallas Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner,*813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).

Because Carter has failed to challenge any factual or legal aspect of the district court’s disposition of his claims or the certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith, he has abandoned the critical issue of his appeal. *See id.*Thus, the appeal lacks arguable merit. *See Howard v. King,*707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED as frivolous. *See Baugh,*117 F.3d at 202 n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Carter is WARNED that filing further frivolous appeals will subject him to sanctions. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 38; *Clark v. Green,*814 F.2d 221, 223 (5th Cir. 1987).

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cíe. 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 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit








CURTISS-WRIGHT CORPORATION
SAVINGS AND INVESTMENT PLAN
As Amended and Restated effective January 1, 2015
EIGHTH INSTRUMENT OF AMENDMENT
Recitals:
		
	1.
	Curtiss-Wright Corporation (the “Company”) has heretofore adopted the Curtiss Wright Corporation Savings and Investment Plan (the “Plan”) and has caused the Plan to be amended and restated in its entirety effective as of January 1, 2015.


		
	2.
	Subsequent to the most recent amendment and restatement of the Plan, the Company has decided to amend the Plan to revise the definition of Disability.


		
	3.
	Section 12.01(a) of the Plan permits the Company to amend the Plan at any time and from time to time.


		
	4.
	Section 12.01(b) authorizes the Administrative Committee to adopt Plan amendments on behalf of the Company under certain circumstances.


		
	5.
	Certain of the Plan amendments described herein shall be subject to approval by the Board of Directors.




Amendments to the Plan:
Effective January 1, 2018, Section 3.07A is amended to delete the second sentence thereof and replace it with the following sentences:


Any CW Savings Contributions shall be allocated to the Employer Account of each eligible Member employed by the Employer on the last day of the Plan Year who had completed a Year of Eligibility Service during the Plan Year (and, for the Plan Year beginning on January 1, 2015, each eligible Member described in Section 6.02(a)(vii) and (viii)) and such allocation shall be based on the ratio that each such Member’s Compensation bears to the total Compensation of all such Members for the Plan Year.  Notwithstanding the foregoing sentence, an eligible Member who incurs a termination of employment on account of death, Disability or retirement on or after attainment of age 55 and completion of at least 3 Years of Vesting Service prior to the end of any such Plan Year shall be entitled to an allocation of CW Savings Contributions and such allocation shall be based on the ratio that each such Member’s Compensation earned prior to his termination of employment bears to the total Compensation of all Members entitled to an allocation of CW Savings Contributions for the Plan Year.


Except to the extent amended by this Instrument of Amendment, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this amendment has been executed on this     day of                   , 2018.













	
		
	 
	Curtiss-Wright Corporation

	 
	Administrative Committee

	 
	 

	By:
	 

	 
	Paul J. Ferdenzi
#### In the Matter of Thomas Murphy, Petitioner, v Donald Selsky, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs, et al., Respondents.

[771 NYS2d 205]

*632Mugglin, J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Franklin County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Correctional Services which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Petitioner was found guilty of violating the prison disciplinary rules prohibiting threats, the commission of forcible sexual acts and assault on another inmate based upon charges that he had twice compelled his cellmate to submit to acts of anal intercourse, punched him on the chest with sufficient force to leave bruises and threatened him with additional physical harm if he reported the incidents to anyone. Following the administrative affirmance of the decision finding petitioner guilty of the charged misconduct, petitioner initiated this CPLR article 78 proceeding wherein he contends that various errors and omissions deprived him of a fair hearing.*

Petitioner contends that he was denied effective employee assistance resulting in the abridgment of his right to present evidence at his hearing. The record discloses, however, that the requested documents were either produced at the hearing or were appropriately denied either on the basis of confidentiality (see *Matter of Tusa v Goord,*287 AD2d 907, 908 [2001], *lv dismissed*98 NY2d 646 [2002]) or because they did not exist (see *Matter of Melluzzo v Selsky,*287 AD2d 850, 851 [2001]). Moreover, there is no indication that petitioner’s defense suffered any prejudice from his assistant’s alleged deficiencies (see *Matter of Brown v Goord,*300 AD2d 777 [2002]).

Similarly unpersuasive is the contention that petitioner’s due process rights were violated because he was denied the right to call his accuser as a witness. While an inmate has a conditional right to call witnesses at a disciplinary hearing (see 7 NYCRR 254.5 [a]), there is no absolute right to confront or cross-examine them (see *Matter of Abdur-Raheem v Mann,*85 NY2d *633113, 119 [1995]). Petitioner’s claim of hearing officer bias also finds no support in the record. There is no indication that the determination under review was the result of anything other than the evidence of petitioner’s guilt *(see Matter of Perkins v Goord,*290 AD2d 700, 701 [2002]). The remaining issues raised by petitioner have been examined and found to be without merit.

Crew III, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

*

 The issue of lack of substantial evidence was raised in petitioner’s CPLR article 78 petition, necessitating the transfer of this proceeding (see CPLR 7804 [g]). Although he does not address this issue in the brief submitted to this Court, we shall retain the matter in the interest of judicial economy and address the procedural questions that are raised therein (see *Matter of Chastine v Selsky,*303 AD2d 801, 802 n [2003]).
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Paul VIGLIOTTI Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-3951

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 14, 2017

Filed: April 19, 2017

Anthony R. Morfitt, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Iowa, Cedar Rapids, IA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Paul Vigliotti, Pro Se

Before RILEY, MURPHY, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Paul Vigliotti directly appeals the sentence the district court1 imposed upon revoking his supervised release. His revocation sentence is composed of a ten-month prison term, plus a ten-year term of supervised release, with conditions. His counsel has moved for leave to withdraw, and has filed a brief challenging Vigliotti’s supervised-release term as unduly long. Vigliotti has filed a pro se brief challenging two *546special conditions of supervised release, and also challenging the length of his supervised-release term.

After care&l review of the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Vigliotti’s revocation sentence, including the challenged aspects of the supervised release. See United States v. Asalati, 615 F.3d 1001, 1006-07 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for substantive reasonableness of length of supervision); United States v. Simons, 614 F.3d 475, 478-79 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review for imposition of special conditions of supervised release). We affirm the judgment, and we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

1

. The Honorable Linda R. Reade, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Iowa.
| 1.   | The      Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the annual period ended      December 31, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of      Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m);      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:            |   | April      14, 2008                |
|------------------|--------|------------------------------------|
|  Signature: |   |  /s/      Terry Lee           |
|  Title:     |   |  Chief      Executive Officer |