alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   Exhibit 10.14


                 SECOND AMENDMENT TO CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT
                 -----------------------------------------------

       THIS AMENDMENT (the "Amendment") is made effective as of the 3rd day of
October, 2000, by and between BALDWIN PIANO & ORGAN COMPANY, a Delaware
corporation (the "Company") and DUANE D. KIMBLE (the "Executive").

       WHEREAS, the parties entered into a Change in Control Agreement, dated
July 5, 1998 which was amended as of the 24th day of September, 1999 (as
amended, the "Change in Control Agreement") and

       WHEREAS, the parties desire to further amend the Change in Control
Agreement to reflect the Company's sale of its finance business and amend the
definition of "Change in Control".

       NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual promises
and covenants contained herein, the parties agree as follows:

       1. AMENDMENT TO SECTION III. DEFINITIONS - Subsection 3 of Section III,
       Definitions, shall be amended by deleting the period at the end of
       subsection 3(v) and substituting "; or" and inserting a new subsection
       (vi) as follows:

              (vi) the Company shall sell or transfer all or substantially all
              of the assets or operations of either one of its two businesses,
              music or contract electronics."

       2. REAFFIRMATION - Except as expressly modified in this Amendment, the
       Company and the Executive hereby ratify and confirm each and every
       provision of the Change of Control Agreement.

       3. ENTIRE AGREEMENT - The terms and provision of the Change of Control
       Agreement and this Amendment constitute the entire agreement between the
       Company and the Executive with respect to the subject matter hereof. This
       Amendment may be amended or modified only by a written instrument
       executed by the Company and the Executive.

       4. GOVERNING LAW - This Amendment shall be governed in all respects by
       the law of the State of Ohio.

       IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Second Amendment to
Change in Control Agreement as of the day and year first above written.


                                       BALDWIN PIANO & ORGAN COMPANY


                                       By: /s/ Karen L. Hendricks
                                          -----------------------
                                       Printed Name: Karen L. Hendricks
                                                     ------------------
                                       Title: Chairman, Ceo & President
                                              -------------------------


                                       EXECUTIVE
                                       ---------


                                       /s/ Duane D. Kimble
                                       --------------------------------
                                       DUANE D. KIMBLE
98-1037.

#### State ex rel. McConnell v. Crawford.

Franklin App. No. 98APD01-0025. This cause is pending before the court as an appeal from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County. It appears from the records of this court that appellants have not filed a merit brief, due August 10, 1998, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court and therefore have failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed *sua sponte.*
12.602 Streamlined evaluation of offers.

(a) When evaluation factors are used, the contracting officer may insert a provision substantially the

same as the provision at 52.212-2, Evaluation-Commercial Products and Commercial Services, in

solicitations for commercial products or commercial services or comply with the procedures in

13.106 if the acquisition is being made using simplified acquisition procedures. When the provision

at 52.212-2 is used, paragraph (a) of the provision shall be tailored to the specific acquisition to

describe the evaluation factors and relative importance of those factors. However, when using the

simplified acquisition procedures in part 13, contracting officers are not required to describe the

relative importance of evaluation factors.

(b) Offers shall be evaluated in accordance with the criteria contained in the solicitation. For many

commercial products or commercial services, the criteria need not be more detailed than technical

(capability of the item offered to meet the agency need), price, and past performance. Technical

capability may be evaluated by how well the proposed products or services meet the Government

requirement instead of predetermined subfactors. Solicitations for commercial products or

commercial services do not have to contain subfactors for technical capability when the solicitation

adequately describes the intended use of the commercial product or commercial service. A technical

evaluation would normally include examination of such things as product or service literature,

product samples (if requested), technical features, and warranty provisions. Past performance shall

be evaluated in accordance with the procedures in section 13.106 or subpart 15.3, as applicable.

The contracting officer shall ensure the instructions provided in the provision at 52.212-1,

Instructions to Offerors—Commercial Products and Commercial Services, and the evaluation criteria

provided in the provision at 52.212-2, Evaluation—Commercial Products and Commercial Services,

are in agreement.

(c) Select the offer that is most advantageous to the Government based on the factors contained in

the solicitation. Fully document the rationale for selection of the successful offeror including

discussion of any trade-offs considered.

Parent topic: Subpart 12.6 - Streamlined Procedures for Evaluation and Solicitation for Commercial

Products and Commercial Services
PSD Application Documents

MCU Facility PSD Permit

Amendment
Page 1 of 2

1

See Edwards v. United States, 114 F.3d 1083 (11TH Cir. 1997) (district courts must treat notices of

appeal in Section 2255 actions as applications for certificates of appealability).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

vs. 5:91cr5014/LAC 

WILLARD WOMBLE

ORDER

The defendant has filed a notice of appeal (doc. 712) of this court’s order denying

his motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651. (Doc. 711). The court noted that a writ of audita

querela could not be granted when relief was cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and that

construing defendant’s motion as one made pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the court could

not consider it as defendant had not obtained an order from the Eleventh Circuit

authorizing the court to entertain a second and successive motion for such relief. The

court construes defendant’s notice of appeal as a request for a certificate of appealability.1

Unless a certificate of appealability is issued, the defendant may not take an appeal from

the final order denying Section 2255 relief. See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(B). Because the

defendant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, and

for the reasons set forth in this court’s order of November 30, 2007 (Doc. 711). Defendant

has not filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Even if such a motion had

been filed, the court finds that the appeal is not taken in good faith and the defendant is

Case 5:91-cr-05014-LC-MD Document 715 Filed 01/30/08 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

Case No: 3:96cr57/RV; 3:03cv2/RV/MD

not otherwise entitled to so proceed. Fed.R.App.P. 24(a)(3). Defendant shall pay the

$455.00 filing fee within thirty days.

DONE AND ORDERED this 30th day of January, 2008.

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 5:91-cr-05014-LC-MD Document 715 Filed 01/30/08 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 21.1**

 

| **List of Subsidiaries**            |   | **Jurisdiction** |
|-------------------------------------|--------|------------------|
| Katonah Debt Advisors, L.L.C.(1)    |   | Delaware         |
| Kohlberg Capital Funding LLC I      |   | Delaware         |
| KCAP Senior Funding I Holdings, LLC |   | Delaware         |
| KCAP Senior Funding I, LLC(4)       |   | Delaware         |
| Katonah Management Holdings LLC(1)  |   | Delaware         |
| Katonah X Management LLC(1)(2)      |   | Delaware         |
| Katonah 2007-I Management LLC(1)(2) |   | Delaware         |
| Commodore Holdings, L.L.C.(1)       |   | Delaware         |
| Trimaran Advisors, L.L.C.(1)(3)     |   | Delaware         |
|                                |   |             |
|                                |   |             |
|                                |   |             |
|                                |   |             |   |

|   | (1) | Represents a wholly-owned portfolio company that is not consolidated for financial reporting purposes. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | A wholly-owned subsidiary of Katonah Management Holdings LLC. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (3) | A wholly-owned subsidiary of Commodore Holdings, L.L.C.                            |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | (4) |  A wholly-owned subsidiary of KCAP Senior Funding I  Holdings, LLC. |
# L_2013311EN.01000101.xml

| 20.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 311/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 311/1

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1152/2013

of 19 November 2013

correcting the Hungarian language version of Regulation (EU) No 1129/2011 amending Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council by establishing a Union list of food additives

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on food additives (1), and in particular Article 10, Article 30(1) and Article 30(5) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | The Hungarian language version of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1129/2011 (2) contains several errors which should be corrected. The other language versions are not affected. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The Hungarian language version of Commission Regulation (EU) No 1129/2011 (2) contains several errors which should be corrected. The other language versions are not affected.

| (2) | Regulation (EU) No 1129/2011 should therefore be corrected accordingly. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Regulation (EU) No 1129/2011 should therefore be corrected accordingly.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee of the Food Chain and Animal Health, and neither the European Parliament nor the Council has opposed them, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee of the Food Chain and Animal Health, and neither the European Parliament nor the Council has opposed them,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Concerns only the Hungarian language version.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 19 November 2013.

For the Commission

The President

José Manuel BARROSO

---

(1)  
  OJ L 354, 31.12.2008, p. 16.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 295, 12.11.2011, p. 1.

2

---
#### Tomas Quiroz GOMEZ; et al., Petitioners, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 07-70807.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 20, 2007.*

Filed Aug. 24, 2007.

*453Tomas Quiroz Gomez, Pamona, CA, pro se.

Marcelina Quiroz, Torres, Pamona, CA, pro se.

Hector Manuel Quiroz Torres, Torres, Pamona, CA, pro se.

CAC-Distriet Counsel, Esq., Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, Los Angeles, CA, Ronald E. Lefevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Carol Federighi, Esq., Brianne Whelan, DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, KLEINFELD and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

This is a petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order adopting and affirming an Immigration Judge’s order denying petitioners Tomas Quiroz Gomez, Marcelina Quiroz Torres, and Hector Manuel Quiroz Torres’ applications for cancellation of removal.

A review of the administrative record demonstrates that petitioner Hector Manuel Quiroz Torres has presented no evidence that he has a qualifying relative as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(b)(l)(D). *See Molinar-Estrada v. INS,*293 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (9th Cir.2002). The BIA therefore correctly concluded that, as a matter of law, petitioner was ineligible for cancellation of removal. Accordingly, respondent’s motion for summary disposition is granted with regard to Hector Manuel Quiroz Torres because the questions raised by this petition for review are so insubstantial as not to require further argument. *See United States v. Hooton,*693 F.2d 857, 858 (9th Cir.1982) (per curiam).

*454We have reviewed the opposition to the motion to dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction with regard to petitioners Tomas Quiroz Gomez and Marcelina Quiroz Torres, and we conclude that petitioners have failed to raise a color-able constitutional or legal claim to invoke our jurisdiction over this petition for review. *See Falcon Carriche v. Ashcroft,*350 F.3d 845 (9th Cir.2003); *Torres-Aguilar v. INS,*246 F.3d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, respondent’s motion to dismiss this petition for review for lack of jurisdiction with regard to petitioners Tomas Quiroz Gomez and Marcelina Quiroz Torres is granted. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); *Romero-Torres v. Ashcroft,*327 F.3d 887, 892 (9th Cir.2003); *Montero-Martinez v. Ashcroft,*277 F.3d 1137, 1144 (9th Cir.2002).

All other pending motions are denied as moot. The temporary stay of removal and voluntary departure confirmed by Ninth Circuit General Order 6.4(c) and *Desta v. Ashcroft,*365 F.3d 741 (9th Cir.2004), shall continue in effect until issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
###### Editorial Note on Part 4290

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 4290 appear at 85 FR 16522, Mar. 24, 2020.

#### § 4290.430 Notification of transactions that may change ownership or Control.

You must promptly notify the Agency as soon as you have knowledge of transactions or events that may result in a transfer of Control or ownership of at least 10 percent of your Regulatory Capital. If the effect of a particular transaction or event is unclear, you must report all pertinent facts to the Agency.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Case No. 3:20-cr-64-MCR

MIGUEL COLINDRES-ACOSTA

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

The Defendant, by consent, has appeared before me pursuant to Rule 11, Fed. 

R. Crim. P., and has entered a plea of guilty to Counts One and Two of the 

indictment. After cautioning and examining the Defendant under oath concerning 

each of the subjects mentioned in Rule 11, I determined the guilty plea was knowing 

and voluntary and the offense charged is supported by an independent basis in fact 

containing each of the essential elements thereof. I therefore recommend the plea 

of guilty be accepted and the Defendant be adjudicated guilty and have sentence 

imposed accordingly.

Dated: October 29, 2020

/s/ Hope Thai Cannon HOPE THAI CANNON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:20-cr-00064-MCR Document 24 Filed 10/29/20 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 3:20-cr-64-MCR

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Objections to these proposed findings and recommendations may be filed 

within twenty-four (24) hours after being served a copy thereof. Any different 

deadline that may appear on the electronic docket is for the court’s internal use 

only, and does not control. A copy of objections shall be served upon the 

magistrate judge and all other parties. A party failing to object to a magistrate 

judge's findings or recommendations contained in a report and 

recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) 

waives the right to challenge on appeal the district court's order based on 

unobjected-to factual and legal conclusions. See U.S. Ct. of App. 11th Cir. Rule 

3-1; 28 U.S.C. § 636.

Case 3:20-cr-00064-MCR Document 24 Filed 10/29/20 Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

** CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTEREDPUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 ** **

We have issued our reports dated March 12, 2014, with respectto the financial statements and internal control over financial reporting, included in the Annual Report of KCAP Financial, Inc.on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2013. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the RegistrationStatements of KCAP Financial, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-175838, effective July 28, 2011; and File No. 333-151995, effectiveJune 27, 2008).

  

 

/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP

 

New York, New York

March 12, 2014
ex_10-16.htm


    
      

      

    

    Exhibit
10.16

    

    
      
        
        

      

      
        1

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

     

    
      
         

      

      
        2

        
          

        

      

      
         

      

    

    

    
      
         

      

      
        3
§ 4287.123 Subordination of lien position. A subordination of the lender's lien position must be requested in writing by the lender and concurred with in writing by the Agency in advance of the subordination. The lender's subordination proposal must include a financial analysis of the servicing action and be fully supported by current financial statements of the borrower and guarantors that are less than 90 days old. ( a ) The subordination of lien position must enhance the borrower's business and not adversely affect the potential for collection of the B&I loan through repayment or liquidation.
( b ) The lien to which the guaranteed loan is subordinated is for a fixed dollar limit and for a fixed term after which the guaranteed loan lien priority will be restored.
( c ) Collateral must remain sufficient to provide for adequate collateral coverage. The Agency may require a current independent appraisal in accordance with § 4279.144 of this chapter.
( d ) Lien priorities must remain for the portion of the collateral that was not subordinated.
( e ) A subordination to a line of credit cannot exceed 1 year. The term of the line of credit cannot be extended.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                      9,804,100
<SECURITIES>                                8,831,600         
<RECEIVABLES>                                  52,900
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           18,688,600 
<PP&E>                                              0
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             18,729,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      13,779,000
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                  4,900,500
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               18,729,700
<SALES>                                             0 
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            4,223,100
<CGS>                                               0         
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 452,600 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              107,800
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             5,227,100
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         5,227,100
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0 
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0 
<NET-INCOME>                                5,227,100
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  108.65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  108.65
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Liberty Energy Corp. (formerly DMA
Minerals Inc.) (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending July 31, 2008
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Daniel Martinez-Atkinson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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; and

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

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
16th day of October, 2008.


/s/ Daniel Martinez-Atkinson
----------------------------------
Chief Financial Officer