alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.1


                                SIXTH AMENDMENT TO
                           AAR CORP. STOCK BENEFIT PLAN

     WHEREAS, AAR CORP. (the "Company") adopted the AAR CORP. Stock Benefit
Plan (the "Plan") on July 16, 1992, amended the Plan by a First Amendment
dated July 29, 1996, a Second Amendment dated January 2, 1997, a Third
Amendment dated May 6, 1997, a Fourth Amendment dated March 20, 1998, and a
Fifth Amendment dated December 16, 1999, and reserved the right to further
amend the Plan; and

     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Company deems it appropriate to
further amend the Plan as described below and approved such amendment at its
October 14, 1999 meeting.

     NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended as follows, effective
October 13, 1999:

     Section 5.1 is amended to read as follows:

          "All Awards to Non-Employee Directors shall be automatic and non-
     discretionary. Each individual who is a Non-Employee Director on the
     effective date of the Plan shall automatically receive an Award, on the
     effective date, consisting of a NSO to purchase 10,000 Shares and each
     individual who becomes a Non-Employee Director after the effective date
     of the Plan shall automatically receive an Award, on the date he or she
     becomes a Non-Employee Director, consisting of a NSO to purchase 10,000
     Shares. The preceding formula for Awards to Non-Employee Directors shall
     not be changed more than once in any six-month period."


<PAGE>

     This Sixth Amendment has been executed by the Company, by its duly
authorized officer, on this 14 day of October, 1999, and attested by its
Secretary.


                                 AAR CORP.


                                 By  /s/ David P. Storch
                                     --------------------------
                                         David P. Storch
                                         President and Chief Executive Officer

ATTEST:


/s/ Howard A. Pulsifer
---------------------------------
    Howard A. Pulsifer, Secretary



SEAL
§ 646.206 Types of projects. ( a ) Projects for the elimination of hazards, to both vehicles and pedestrians, of railroad-highway crossings may include but are not limited to: ( 1 ) Grade crossing elimination;
( 2 ) Reconstruction of existing grade separations; and
( 3 ) Grade crossing improvements.
( b ) Other railroad-highway projects are those which use railroad properties or involve adjustments to railroad facilities required by highway construction but do not involve the elimination of hazards of railroad-highway crossings. Also included are adjustments to facilities that are jointly owned or used by railroad and utility companies.
### §450o. Andrew Johnson National Historic Site; authorization

When title to the site of the Andrew Johnson Homestead and the site of the tailor shop in which Andrew Johnson worked (now owned and administered by the State of Tennessee), located in Greeneville, Tennessee, together with such buildings and property located thereon as may be designated by the Secretary of the Interior as necessary or desirable for national historic site purposes shall have been vested in the United States, said area and improvements, if any, together with the burial place of Andrew Johnson, now administered as a national cemetery, shall be designated and set apart by proclamation of the President for preservation as a national historic site for the benefit and inspiration of the people and shall be called the "Andrew Johnson National Historic Site."

(Aug. 29, 1935, ch. 801, §1, 49 Stat. 958; Pub. L. 88–197, §1, Dec. 11, 1963, 77 Stat. 349.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Change of Name

"National historic site" substituted in text for "national monument" on authority of Pub. L. 88–197, which redesignated Andrew Johnson National Monument as Andrew Johnson National Historic Site.

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Establishment of Monument; Boundaries

Monument and boundaries established by Presidential Proc. No. 2554, Apr. 27, 1942, 56 Stat. 1955.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Annual Report of Hawthorne Financial Corporation
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2003, I Simone Lagomarsino,
President and Chief Executive Officer of Hawthorne Financial Corporation,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); 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: March 28, 2003                   By:      /s/ SIMONE LAGOMARSINO
                                           ------------------------------------
                                                    Simone Lagomarsino
                                          President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Fletcher *v.*Fletcher, administratrix.

April 18, 1910.

Ejectment. Before Judge Whipple. Irwin superior court.

January 14, 1909.

*Graham & Graham*and *L. Kennedy,*for plaintiff in error.

*McDonald & Quincey*and *Tlaygood £ Outts,*contra.

Lumpkin, J.

1. In an action to *recover*land both parties claimed under a common source of title. The plaintiff had a deed from the common source. The defendant claimed under an alleged conveyance from such person to his son and by conveyances under the son; and also pleaded that such owner had informed the defendant that he had given the land to his son, that the son conveyed the land to other persons, that the defendant, relying upon the statements so made, purchased for value from such third parties, and that the original oivner and the plaintiff, who claimed under a subsequent conveyance with" notice of the fact, were estopped. On the subject of the plea of estoppel, there was evidence pro and eon. The defendant testified, that the original owner had stated that he had given the land to his son, but requested the defendant not to purchase it from the son, as the latter would waste the proceeds; that therefore defendant did not buy from the son, but the latter sold it to other persons, and the defendant bought from them without notice of any defect in the title. In charging on the subject-of estoppel, the presiding judge instructed the jury that if the original owner of the land stated to the defendant that he had «given it to his son, and the circumstances were such as to lead a reasonable man to think that the defendant would probably act upon those statements, and the defendant did buy the land from the son, acting upon the faith of the statement so made, the original owner would be estopped, and the subsequent purchaser under him would likewise be estopped. Ho charge was given as to the effect of the sale by the son to third persons and by them to the defendant. *Held,*that the charge was not adjusted to the plea of estoppel and the evidence adduced by the defendant in support of it.

2. The judgment of the trial court is reversed for the reason indicated in the preceding lieadnote alone. Hone of the other grounds of the motion for a new trial were such as to require a reversal.

*Judgment reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940

Release No. 35128 / February 13, 2024

ORDER UNDER SECTION 6(c) OF THE INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940 

GRANTING AN EXEMPTION FROM SECTIONS 18(a)(2), 18(c), 18(i) AND 61(a) OF THE 

ACT

GC Advisors LLC and Golub Capital Private Credit Fund filed an application on July 3, 2023,

and an amendment to the application on September 28, 2023, requesting an order under section 

6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Act”) granting an exemption from sections 

18(a)(2), 18(c), 18(i) and 61(a) of the Act. The order permits certain closed-end management 

investment companies that have elected to be regulated as business development companies to 

issue multiple classes of shares with varying sales loads and asset-based service and/or 

distribution fees.

On January 16, 2024, a notice of the filing of the application was issued (Investment Company

Act Release No. 35090). The notice gave interested persons an opportunity to request a hearing 

and stated that an order disposing of the application would be issued unless a hearing was 

ordered. No request for a hearing has been filed, and the Commission has not ordered a hearing.

The matter has been considered and it is found, on the basis of the information set forth in the 

application, as amended, that granting the requested exemption is appropriate in the public 

interest and consistent with the protection of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the 

policy and provisions of the Act.

Accordingly, in the matter of GC Advisors LLC and Golub Capital Private Credit Fund (File

No. 812-15477),

In the Matter of

GC ADVISORS LLC

GOLUB CAPITAL PRIVATE CREDIT FUND

200 Park Avenue, 25th Floor

New York, NY 10166

(812-15477)
IT IS ORDERED, under section 6(c) of the Act, that the requested exemption from sections 

18(a)(2), 18(c), 18(i) and 61(a) of the Act is granted, effective immediately, subject to the 

condition in the application, as amended.

For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.

Sherry R. Haywood,

Assistant Secretary.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-13-00172-CR

ABRAHAM JACOB PROENZA

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

404th District Court of Cameron County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 10-CR-727-G

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and 

remanded. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court REVERSED AND 

REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

July 23, 2015
### §460jj–6. State civil and criminal jurisdiction

Nothing in this subchapter shall diminish, enlarge, or modify any right of the State of Colorado, or any political subdivision thereof, to exercise civil and criminal jurisdiction within the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area or the Arapaho National Recreation Area or of rights to tax persons, franchises, or property, including mineral or other interests, in or on lands or waters within those areas.

(Pub. L. 95–450, §10, Oct. 11, 1978, 92 Stat. 1098.)
§ 71.30 The hearing and burden of proof. ( a ) The ALJ shall conduct a hearing on the record in order to determine whether the defendant is liable for a civil penalty or assessment under § 71.3 and, if so, the appropriate amount of any such civil penalty or assessment considering any aggravating or mitigating factors.
( b ) The authority shall prove defendant's liability and any aggravating factors by a preponderance of the evidence.
( c ) The defendant shall prove any affirmative defenses and any mitigating factors by a preponderance of the evidence.
( d ) The hearing shall be open to the public unless otherwise closed by the ALJ for good cause shown.
### §460jj–7. Authorization of appropriations

Effective October 1, 1979, there are authorized to be appropriated to carry out sections 1 through 10 of this Act $5,000,000 for the acquisition of lands and interests in lands and $5,000,000 for water quality and recreation development. Moneys appropriated from the Land and Water Conservation Fund shall be available for the acquisition of lands and interests therein within the Arapaho National Recreation Area.

(Pub. L. 95–450, §11, Oct. 11, 1978, 92 Stat. 1098.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

Sections 1 through 10 of this Act, referred to in text, means sections 1 through 10 of Pub. L. 95–450, Oct. 11, 1978, 92 Stat. 1095, which enacted sections 460jj to 460jj–6 of this title and enacted provisions set out as notes under sections 460jj and 1132 of this title.
§ 543.31 Presenting a claim. ( a ) *Claimant.* You may file a claim if you are the injured person or the owner of the damaged or lost property. A person acting on your behalf as an agent, executor, administrator, parent, guardian, or other representative may file a claim for you if the person provides a written statement signed by you giving that person permission to act for you. A representative may also file a claim for wrongful death. If you hire a lawyer or authorize a representative to act on your behalf, the agency will correspond only with that representative, and will not continue to correspond with you.
( b ) *Claim form.* You may obtain a form from staff in the Central Office, Regional Offices, Bureau institutions, or staff training centers.
( c ) *Presenting a claim.* You may either mail or deliver the claim to the regional office in the region where the loss or injury occurred. If the loss or injury occurred in the Central Office, you may either mail or deliver the claim to the Office of General Counsel, Central Office. A list of addresses for all the Bureau institutions and offices can be found at *www.bop.gov .*
[65 FR 34364, May 26, 2000, as amended at 70 FR 67091, Nov. 4, 2005; 88 FR 76657, Nov. 7, 2023; 88 FR 87903, Dec. 20, 2023]
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>     5


<CAPTION>

Article 5 Fin. Data Schedule for 1st Qtr 10-Q

<S>                               <C>

<PERIOD-TYPE>                     3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                    JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                      JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                 2,307
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                              0
<ALLOWANCES>                               0
<INVENTORY>                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       2,307
<PP&E>                                     0
<DEPRECIATION>                             0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         2,307
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      0
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                              51,900
<OTHER-SE>                                 0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               0
<SALES>                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           0
<CGS>                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            0
<INCOME-TAX>                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                         (49,593)
<EPS-BASIC>                           (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (.02)




</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 635

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 635 appear at 67 FR 75924, Dec. 10, 2002.

#### § 635.303 Applicability.

The provisions of this subpart are applicable to all Federal-aid highway construction projects.

[69 FR 7119, Feb. 13, 2004]
EXHIBIT 21.1

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT
                           ---------------------------
                                 SUBSIDIARIES OF
                              WHITEMARK HOMES, INC.


A.    Wholly-owned subsidiaries of Whitemark Homes, Inc., a Colorado
      corporation:

            Whitemark Homes of Florida, Inc., a Florida corporation

B.    Wholly-owned subsidiary of Whitemark Homes of Florida, Inc.:

            Home Funding, Inc., a Florida corporation

C.    Partnership and Limited Liability Corporation interests held by Whitemark
      Homes of Florida, Inc.:

            Whitemark at Fox Glen, Ltd., a Florida limited partnership (99%
            limited partnership interest; the remaining 1% interest is held by
            general partner Fox Glen Management Corporation, which is wholly-
            owned by Kenneth L. White)

            Sheeler Hills, Ltd., a Florida limited partnership (99% limited
            partnership interest; the remaining 1% interest is held by general
            partner Sheeler Hills Management Corporation, which is wholly-owned
            by Kenneth L. White)

            Whitemark at Corner Lake,
            LLC Whitemark at Glenbrook,
            LLC Whitemark at Little Creek, LLC
IIA 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 9 

Calling on the United States and Congress to take immediate action to 

address the challenge of climate change. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 28, 2019 

Mr. CARPER (for himself, Mr. MERKLEY, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. COONS, Mr. 

WHITEHOUSE, Mr. JONES, Mr. SCHATZ, Mr. BOOKER, Mr. SCHUMER, 

Mr. BENNET, Mr. REED, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. MURPHY, Mr. MANCHIN, Mr. HEINRICH, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. BROWN, Mrs. 

MURRAY, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Mrs. 

GILLIBRAND, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. WARNER, Mr. LEAHY, Ms. ROSEN, Ms. 

SMITH, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Ms. HIRONO, Ms. DUCKWORTH, 

Mr. DURBIN, Ms. HASSAN, Mr. CASEY, Mr. PETERS, Mr. MENENDEZ, 

Ms. CORTEZ MASTO, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. KAINE, Mr. TESTER, Ms. HARRIS, Ms. CANTWELL, Ms. SINEMA, Ms. WARREN, Mr. KING, and Mr. 

UDALL) introduced the following joint resolution; which was read twice 

and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Calling on the United States and Congress to take immediate 

action to address the challenge of climate change. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That it is the sense of Congress that— 

4 (1) climate change is real; 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 9 IS 

1 (2) human activity during the last century is 

2 the dominant cause of the climate crisis; and 

3 (3) the United States and Congress should take 

4 immediate action to address the challenge of climate 

5 change. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
#### Cor Canada Road Company, LLC, et al., Appellants, v Dunn & Sgromo Engineers, PLLC, Respondent.

[825 NYS2d 601]

*1365Appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Edward D. Garni, J.), entered November 10, 2005. The order and judgment, among other things, granted judgment in favor of defendant on its counterclaim.

It is hereby ordered that the order and judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiffs appeal from an order and judgment in this professional malpractice action entered upon a jury verdict of no cause of action with respect to plaintiffs and finding in favor of defendant on its counterclaim. We reject plaintiffs’ contention that Supreme Court erred in permitting defendant’s attorney to use extrinsic evidence to cross-examine a witness with respect to the credibility of that witness. Although it is “well settled that extrinsic evidence introduced solely to impeach credibility on a collateral issue is, with special exceptions, inadmissible” *(Halloran v Virginia Chems.,*41 NY2d 386, 390 [1977]), here the extrinsic evidence previously was introduced by plaintiffs as part of their case-in-chief. Plaintiffs further contend that the court abused its discretion in allowing that cross-examination and that a new trial thus is required. Even assuming, arguendo, that the court thereby abused its discretion, we nevertheless conclude that a new trial is not required because any such “error did not adversely affect a substantial right of the plaintiffis]” *(Getlin v St. Vincent’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr. of N.Y.,*117 AD2d 707, 709 [1986]; see CPLR 2002).

Contrary to the further contention of plaintiffs, the court did not abuse its discretion in precluding one of their experts from testifying concerning certain matters on the ground that such testimony would be cumulative. “ ‘Whether [testimony] should be excluded as cumulative is a matter that rests within the sound discretion of the trial court’ and the exclusion of [that] testimony constituted a sound exercise of discretion in this case” *(Clemons v Vanderpool,*289 AD2d 1078, 1079 [2001]; *cf. Shafran v St. Vincent’s Hosp. & Med. Ctr.,*264 AD2d 553, 556 [1999]).

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. Present—Scudder, J.P, Kehoe, Gorski, Smith and Pine, JJ.
§ 76.24 Protective order. ( a ) A party or a prospective witness or deponent may seek to limit the availability or disclosure of evidence by filing a motion for a protective order with respect to discovery sought by an opposing party or with respect to the hearing.
( b ) In issuing a protective order, the Judge may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, or to protect privileged information including one or more of the following orders: ( 1 ) That the discovery not be had;
( 2 ) That the discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions, including a designation of the time or place;
( 3 ) That the discovery may be had only through a method of discovery other than that requested;
( 4 ) That certain matters not be the subject of inquiry, or that the scope of discovery be limited to certain matters;
( 5 ) That discovery be conducted with no one present except persons designated by the Judge;
( 6 ) That the contents of discovery or evidence be sealed;
( 7 ) That a sealed deposition be opened only by order of the Judge;
( 8 ) That the parties simultaneously file specified documents or information enclosed in sealed envelopes to be opened as directed by the Judge.