alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
exv10w55



 






Exhibit 10.55




CONTAINER SALE AGREEMENT




     CRONOS FINANCE (BERMUDA) LIMITED (the “Seller”) and CF LEASING LTD. (the
“Borrower”), pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, dated as of August 1, 2005 (the
“Purchase Agreement”), hereby confirm their understanding with respect to the sale by
Seller to Borrower of those Containers listed on the Exhibit A attached hereto (the “Purchased
Containers”) and associated Related Transferred Assets (collectively, the “Purchased
Assets”).



     Conveyance of Containers. Seller hereby conveys, assigns and transfers to Borrower
all of Seller’s right, title and interest in, to, and under the Purchased Assets. Such sale shall
be without recourse to Seller except to the extent provided in Section 3.3 of the Purchase
Agreement.



     Seller hereby confirms that:



          (1) The sum of the Net Book Value of the Purchased Containers and as of August 1, 2005 (the
“Transfer Date”) is equal to $73,750,101 and the Purchase Price for such Purchased Assets
is $73,750,101. Such Purchase Price will be payable on the Transfer Date and shall consist of a
cash payment of $73,750,101.




          (2) As of the Transfer Date, Seller is Solvent and will not be rendered insolvent by the
transactions contemplated hereby nor is it aware of any pending insolvency; Seller is paying its
debts as they become due and, after giving effect to the transactions contemplated hereby, will
have adequate capital to conduct its business.




          (3) Each Purchased Asset complies in all material respects with the Container Representations
and Warranties made by Seller pursuant to the Purchase Agreement.




     All terms and conditions of the Purchase Agreement with respect to Seller and the Purchased
Containers are hereby ratified, confirmed and incorporated herein, provided that in the event of
any conflict, the provisions of this Container Sale Agreement shall control over the conflicting
provisions of the Purchase Agreement.



     This Container Sale Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the
substantive laws of the State of New York (without regard to choice of law principles) applicable
to agreements made and to be performed therein and the obligations, rights, and remedies of the
parties under this Container Sale Agreement shall be determined in accordance with such laws.



 









 





     Terms capitalized herein and not defined herein shall have their respective meanings as set
forth in the Purchase Agreement.



          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Seller and the Borrower have caused this Container Sale Agreement to
be duly executed by their respective officers as of this 1st day of August, 2005.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	CRONOS FINANCE
(BERMUDA) LIMITED	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	/s/ Peter J. Younger	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Name:
	 	Peter J. Younger	 	 
	 

	 	Title:
	 	Director	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	CF LEASING LTD.	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	/s/ Dennis J. Tietz	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Name:
	 	Dennis J. Tietz	 	 
	 

	 	Title:
	 	Director
COKER, et al. v. DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORP.

No. 532A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 20, 2006.

Mona Lisa Wallace, Salisbury, Cathy Williams, K. Edward Greene, Raleigh, Gary K. Shipman, Wilmington, for James Coker, et al.

Sidney S. Eagles, Raleigh, Allison O. Van Laningham, Greensboro, Raymond M. Kethledge, Troy, MI, for DaimlerChrysler Corp.

Jonathan Wall, Greensboro, for Academy of Trial Lawyers.

Sean E. Andrussier, Raleigh, for National Asso. of Mfg. & Am. Tort Reform.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th day of February 2006 by National Association of Manufacturing & American Tort Reform Association for leave to file Amici Curiae Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Unless already submitted, the Amici Brief shall be submitted to the court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 28(i). By order of the Court in conference this the 20th day of February 2006."
10-Q Exhibit 32.1: Certifications 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 iShares COMEX Gold Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lee T. Kranefuss, Chief Executive Officer of Barclays Global Investors International, Inc., the Sponsor of the Trust,
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, 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 Trust at the dates and for the periods indicated.



|                             
|-----------------------------
|Date: August 9, 2007         
|                             
|/s/ LEE T. KRANEFUSS         
|Lee T. Kranefuss *           
|Chief Executive Officer      
|(Principal executive officer)



|* | The Registrant is a trust and Mr. Kranefuss is signing in his capacity as an officer of Barclays Global Investors International, Inc., the Sponsor of the Registrant.
|- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CERTIFICATION**

Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002

I, Carol Russell, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Capital Beverage Corporation;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual 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 annual report;

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

     a) designed such internal controls to ensure that material information relating to the registrant and its subsidiaries (collectively, the "Company") is made known to me by others within the Company, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's internal controls as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

     c) presented in this annual report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors:

     a) all significant deficiencies (if any) in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. I have indicated in this annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: May 7, 2008
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7013

JAMES R. BYERS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-98-4-R)

Submitted: September 15, 1998 Decided: October 7, 1998

Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James R. Byers, Appellant Pro Se. Hazel Elizabeth Shaffer, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

James R. Byers appeals the district court’s order denying

relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. Byers v. Angelone, No. CA-98-4-R (W.D. Va. June 10, 1998).

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
Anthony DOVE v. Sonya S. DAVIS.

No. 140P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2006.

Anthony Dove, Pro Se.

William D. Spence, Kinston, for Sonya S. Davis.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 8th day of March 2005 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 26th day of January 2006."
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSEFINA NINO BIBIANO; MARLON 

NINO BIBIANO, 

Petitioners, 

 v. 

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney 

General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-73128 

Agency Nos. A202-098-224 

A202-098-225 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted March 10, 2022**

Pasadena, California

Before: TALLMAN and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and KORMAN,*** District 

Judge.

Josefina Nino Bibiano and derivatively her son, natives and citizens of 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Edward R. Korman, United States District Judge for 

the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.

FILED

MAR 14 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 

Mexico, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing 

their appeal from the Immigration Judge’s decision denying their applications for 

asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against 

Torture. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition.

Substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination that Petitioners 

failed to establish eligibility for asylum. See Sharma v. Garland, 9 F.4th 1052, 

1060 (9th Cir. 2021). Petitioners are not “refugee[s],” as defined in the Refugee 

Act of 1980. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A). Petitioners did not show past persecution 

because they were not harmed in Mexico and it appears that the anonymous threats 

were a case of mistaken identity. See Sharma, 9 F.4th at 1061. The record does

not compel a conclusion otherwise. See id. 

Nor did Petitioners establish an objectively reasonable fear of persecution on 

account of a protected ground. See id. at 1065–66.1 Petitioners’ fear of crime and 

general lawlessness in Mexico is insufficient to establish eligibility for asylum. 

See Singh v. I.N.S., 134 F.3d 962, 967 (9th Cir. 1998); see also Zetino v. Holder, 

622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 2010) (“An alien’s desire to be free from harassment 

by criminals motivated by theft or random violence by gang members bears no 

1 The BIA held that Petitioners’ imputed particular social group argument was 

waived because it was not raised to the IJ and was not properly presented to the 

Board. Petitioners have not offered any valid basis for reversing that 

determination.
3 

nexus to a protected ground.”).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5472 Received in Senate (RDS)]

  2d Session
                                H. R. 5472

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 10, 2008

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 2650 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Street, Indianapolis, Indiana, as 
             the ``Julia M. Carson Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. JULIA M. CARSON POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 2650 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Street, Indianapolis, 
Indiana, shall be known and designated as the ``Julia M. Carson Post 
Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Julia M. 
Carson Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 9, 2008.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
STATE v. John Scott BADGETT.

No. 522A04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 29, 2005.

John H. Watters, Special Deputy Attorney General, Garland N. Yates, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 29th day of December 2005 by Defendant for extension of time to file brief:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant (Badgett) shall have up to and including the 27th day of January 2006 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 29th day of December 2005."
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 20318 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.

DONAL MONTA AMERSON, also known as Money

,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:10

- CR

- 306

- 1

Befor e DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA , Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Donal Monta Amerson 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). Amerson h a s not filed a response . 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

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 8, 2015
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-20318 Document: 00513108175 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/08/2015No. 14

- 20318

2 appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is
GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 14-20318 Document: 00513108175 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/08/2015
KARGER v. WOOD.

No. 8A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 13, 2006.

James R. Levinson, Benson, for Lisa Karger.

*666The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th day of February 2006 by Defendant to withdraw appeal:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 13th day of March 2006."
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**STATEMENT OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.ss.1350**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 (the Form****10-Q) of Citizens Bancorp of Virginia, Inc. (the “Company”), I, Ronald E. Baron, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,****hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the**Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

 

|   | (a) | the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | (b) | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods presented in the Form l0-Q. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | /s/ Ronald E. Baron | Date: May 14, 2009 |
|--------|---------------------|--------------------|

Ronald E. Baron

Chief Financial Officer
HAMMITT v. PETTIT.

No. COA05-648.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed February 21, 2006.

Certification Date March 13, 2006.

Appeal from Gaston (05CVS416).

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
Thomas Ritter HELM, Petitioner, v. Lisa Lorraine HAUSER.

No. 19-5958

Supreme Court of the United States.

Jan. 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District denied.
STATE v. Kenneth CONYERS.

No. 156P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 6, 2006.

R. Marcus Lodge, Robert C. Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney Generals, Kathleen U. Baldwin, Assistant Attorney General, Roxann Vaneekhoven, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 20th day of March 2006 by Defendant for "Petition for Discretionary Review":

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 6th day of April 2006."
PROPERTY RIGHTS ADVOCACY GROUP, on behalf of its members and other similarly situated real property owners and taxpayers of and in the Town of Oak Island, North Carolina, and Honorable James W. Better, individually v. TOWN OF LONG BEACH, a former North Carolina municipal corporation and body politic, now known and referred to as Town of Oak Island, a North Carolina municipal corporation and body politic, and successor in interest to the former Town of Long Beach; Town of Oak Island, a North Carolina municipal corporation and body politic; and The State of North Carolina.

No. 559A05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 5, 2006.

Appeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, ___ N.C.App. ___, 617 S.E.2d 715 (2005), dismissing an appeal from an order entered 28 May 2004 by Judge Robert F. Floyd, Jr. in Superior Court, Brunswick County. Heard in the Supreme Court 18 April 2006.

Law Offices of G. Grady Richardson, Jr., P.C., by G. Grady Richardson, Jr., Wilmington, for plaintiff-appellants.

Roger Lee Edwards, P.A., by Roger Lee Edwards, Oak Island, for defendant-appellee Town of Long Beach, now Town of Oak Island.

Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by V. Lori Fuller, Assistant Attorney General, for defendant-appellee State of North Carolina.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.
STATE v. MULLINS.

No. COA04-1584.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed September 6, 2005.

Certification September 26, 2005.

Case reported without published opinion. Affirmed.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5595 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs to provide dental care to veterans with service-connected disabilities, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 12, 2008 

Mr. CARNEY (for himself and Mr. KIRK) introduced the following bill; which 

was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide dental care to veterans with service-connected disabilities, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Make Our Veterans 

5 Smile Act of 2008’’. 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5595 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROVISION OF DENTAL CARE BY SECRETARY OF 

2 VETERANS AFFAIRS TO VETERANS WITH 

3 SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITIES. 

4 (a) PROVISION OF CARE.—Section 1712(a)(1)(G) of 

5 title 38, United States Code, is amended by striking 

6 ‘‘rated as total’’. 

7 (b) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE CARE BY ENTERING

8 INTO CONTRACTS.—Section 1703(a)(7) of such title is 

9 amended by striking ‘‘section 1712(a)(1)(F)’’ and insert10 ing ‘‘section 1712(a)(1)’’. 

11 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

12 subsections (a) and (b) shall apply with respect to out13 patient dental services and treatment, and related dental 

14 appliances, furnished on or after January 1, 2009. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5365 

To suspend temporarily the duty on ground fault circuit interrupter 

receptacles of greater than 15 amps. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 12, 2008 

Mr. ACKERMAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on ground fault circuit 

interrupter receptacles of greater than 15 amps. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN GROUND FAULT CIRCUIT INTER4 RUPTER RECEPTACLES OF GREATER THAN 15 

5 AMPS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

7 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

8 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

9 new heading: 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•HR 5365 IH

‘‘ 9902.85.36 Ground fault circuit interrupter receptacles of greater 

than 15 amps (provided for 

in subheading 8536.30.80) ... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
STATE v. Antoine Dwayne WELLS.

No. 100P05.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 26, 2006.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, Peter S. Gilchrist, III, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th day of February 2005 by Defendant for Appropriate Relief:

"Motion Dismissed without prejudice by order of the Court in conference this the 26th day of January 2006."
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-18-0000055 29-JUN-2018 07:55 AM
IN RE WILL OF DUNN.

No. COA04-1655.

North Carolina Court of Appeals.

Filed December 20, 2005.

Certification Date January 9, 2006.

Appeal from Durham (95E751)

Case without published opinion. Appeal dismissed.