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

SECOND AMENDMENT TO
AMENDED AND RESTATED REVOLVING LOAN AGREEMENT


This SECOND AMENDMENT (the “Second Amendment”) to the Amended and Restated Revolving Loan Agreement, dated as of June 21, 2019 (as amended to date, the “Agreement”), by and between Golub Capital BDC, Inc. (the “Borrower”) and GC Advisors LLC (the “Lender”), is hereby made as of June 15, 2022. 
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Borrower and Lender desire to amend the Agreement to extend the Maturity Date;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and the mutual agreements contained herein, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Borrower and Lender hereby agree as follows: 
1.    Amendment to the Maturity Date.  
The definition of “Maturity Date” in Section 17 of the Agreement is hereby amended and restated as follows:
“Maturity Date” shall mean June 15, 2025.

2.    Full Force and Effect.  Other than as specifically set forth in this Second Amendment, all terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
3.    Governing Law.  This Second Amendment shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New York.
4.    Counterparts.      This Second Amendment may be signed in two counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original but both of which when taken together shall constitute but one agreement. 


[Signature page follows]
    1    
			
	











IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Borrower and Lender have caused this Second Amendment to be duly executed by their duly authorized officers, all as of the date first set forth above.


BORROWER:
GOLUB CAPITAL BDC, INC.
By: /s/ David B. Golub    
      Name: David B. Golub
      Title: Chief Executive Officer










LENDER:
GC ADVISORS LLC
By: /s/ David B. Golub        
      Name: David B. Golub
      Title: President
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**STEPHEN EDWARD WEAVER,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 1 WAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 30th day of March, 2016, the Petition for Allo wance of Appeal is** 

DENIED

**.**

**Justice Donohue did not participate in the consideration or decision of this** 

**matter.**
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE 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 Quarterly Report of Utah UraniumCorp. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Peter Dickie, President of the Company, 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; 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 19th day of November, 2007.





/s/ Peter Dickie

President





---

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 Report of Utah Uranium Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Christopher Turley, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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; 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 19th day of November , 2007.





/s/ Christopher Turley

Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 12 (Thursday, January 19, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 2760]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-914]



[[Page 2760]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent Decree

    In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is 
hereby given that a proposed consent decree in United States v. Triad 
Mining, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-0026, was lodged with the United 
States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on January 
11, 2012.
    This proposed Consent Decree concerns a complaint filed by the 
United States against the Defendant, pursuant to Sections 309(b) and 
(d) of the Clean Water Act (``CWA''), 33 U.S.C. 1319(b) and (d), to 
obtain injunctive relief from and impose civil penalties against the 
Defendant for the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United 
States without authorization by the United States, in violation of CWA 
Section 301(a), 33 U.S.C. 1311(a). The proposed Consent Decree resolves 
these allegations by requiring the Defendant to restore and/or mitigate 
the impacted areas and to pay a civil penalty.
    The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to 
this proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) days from the date of 
publication of this Notice. Please address comments to Perry Rosen, 
Attorney, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044 and refer to United 
States v. Triad Mining, Inc., DJ<greek-i> 90-5-1-1-18796.
    The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Clerk's Office, 
United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, 46 
East Ohio Street Room 105, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46204. In addition, 
the proposed Consent Decree may be viewed at http://www.justice.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html.

Cherie L. Rogers,
Assistant Section Chief, Environmental Defense Section, Environment & 
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 2012-914 Filed 1-18-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
vi

Table of Contents (continued)

Section Page(s)

(8) Grade .................................................................................................. 44

(9) Remarks.................................................................................................. 44

Manufactured and Blanched Almonds ....................................................... 45

Appendix I - U.S. Standards for Grades of Almonds in the Shell and 

U.S. Standards for Grades of Shelled Almonds

Appendix II – Certificate and Notesheet Examples




















































4

§51.2091 Thickness.

"Thickness" means the greatest dimension between the two semi-flat surfaces of the shell

measured at right angles to a plane extending between the seams of the shell.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 22805]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9216]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Federal Bureau of Investigation


Meeting of the Compact Council for the National Crime Prevention 
and Privacy Compact; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Bureau of Investigation.

ACTION: Notice; Correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Bureau of Investigation published a document in 
the Federal Register of April 3, 2012, concerning the date and location 
of the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact Council (Council) 
created by the National Crime Prevention and Privacy Compact Act of 
1998 (Compact). The document listed the wrong street address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Skeeter J. Murray, (304) 625-3518.
    Correction in the Federal Register of April 3, 2012, in 77 FR 
20051, first column, correct the hotel address line in ADDRESSES to 
read: 300 East Travis.

    Dated: April 10, 2012.
Gary S. Barron,
FBI Compact Officer, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, 
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
[FR Doc. 2012-9216 Filed 4-16-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-02-P
Exhibit 11.0

 

KEARNY FINANCIAL CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES

STATEMENTS RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

(In Thousands, Except Per Share Data, Unaudited)

 

 

|                                                                                     |   | Three Months Ended |   |   | Nine Months Ended |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------------------|--------|--------|-------------------|
|                                                                                     |   | March 31, 2009     |   |   | March 31, 2009    |
|                                                                                     |   |               |   |   |              |
|                                                                                     |   |               |   |   |              |
| Income available to common stockholders                                                  | $      | 1,304              |   | $      | 5,278             |
|                                                                                     |   |               |   |   |              |
| Weighted average shares outstanding                                                      |   | 67,984             |   |   | 68,211            |
|                                                                                     |   |               |   |   |              |
| Basic earnings per share                                                                 | $      | 0.02               |   | $      | 0.08              |
|                                                                                     |   |               |   |   |              |
| Income for diluted earnings per share                                                    | $      | 1,304              |   | $      | 5,278             |
|                                                                                     |   |               |   |   |              |
| Total weighted average common shares and equivalents outstanding for diluted computation |   | 68,007             |   |   | 68,326            |
|                                                                                     |   |               |   |   |              |
| Diluted earnings per share                                                               | $      | 0.02               |   | $      | 0.08              |
|                                                                                     |   |               |   |   |              |
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 86 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 86

   Encouraging greater recognition of Memorial Day and Veterans Day.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 27, 2001

   Mr. Baca submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Encouraging greater recognition of Memorial Day and Veterans Day.

Whereas veterans have served our Nation with honor and at great personal 
        sacrifice;
Whereas we owe the security of our Nation to those who have defended it;
Whereas on Memorial Day we honor those individuals who lost their lives in 
        service to our Nation;
Whereas on Veterans Day we honor those individuals who have defended democracy 
        by serving in the military; and
Whereas the observance of Memorial Day and Veterans Day is an expression of our 
        faith in democracy, our faith in our values, and our faith that those 
        who fight for freedom will defeat those whose cause is unjust: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That the Congress
            (1) encourages Americans to demonstrate their support for 
        veterans on Memorial Day and Veterans Day by treating those 
        days as special days of remembrance; and
            (2) further encourages houses of worship and other 
        institutions to ring bells at noon on Memorial Day and Veterans 
        Day, and encourages people to then observe a moment of silence 
        in recognition of veterans.
                                 <all>
```
#### Mark Steven SELF, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee.

No. 3916.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

June 15, 1979.

Bruce A. Bookman, Anchorage, for appellant.

Stephen E. Branchflower, Asst. Dist. Atty., Joseph D. Balfe, Dist. Atty., Anchorage, Avrum M. Gross, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for appellee.

Before RABINOWITZ, C. J., and CON-NOR, BOOCHEVER, BURKE and MATTHEWS, JJ.

*25OPINION

PER CURIAM.

We find no merit in appellant’s contention that his sentence is excessive.1 Therefore, the judgment of the superior court is affirmed. *McClain v. State,*519 P.2d 811 (Alaska 1974).

1

. Appellant and another individual robbed the night clerk at an Anchorage motel. Appellant was armed with a rifle which appellant claims had been unloaded prior to the robbery. His companion carried a knife. Appellant pled guilty to a charge of armed robbery, and the superior court imposed a five year sentence, one third of the authorized maximum. AS 11.-15.240. Appellant has a lengthy juvenile record and at the time of the present offense was an adult parolee from the state of Massachusetts where he had previously been convicted and sentenced for armed robbery.
IV 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 11 

Expressing the sense of Congress that the Supreme Court misinterpreted 

the First Amendment to the Constitution in the case of Buckley v. Valeo. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 30, 2019 

Ms. KAPTUR (for herself, Ms. NORTON, Mr. HIGGINS of New York, and Ms. 

SCHAKOWSKY) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress that the Supreme Court 

misinterpreted the First Amendment to the Constitution 

in the case of Buckley v. Valeo. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that the Su3 preme Court misinterpreted the First Amendment to the 

4 Constitution in its decision in the 1976 case of Buckley 

5 v. Valeo because— 

6 (1) the decision failed to recognize that the un7 limited spending of large amounts of money on elec8 tions has a corrosive effect on the electoral process 

9 not simply because of direct transactions between 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HCON 11 IH 

1 those who give large amounts of money and can2 didates and elected officials but because the presence 

3 of unlimited amounts of money corrupts the process 

4 on a more fundamental level; and 

5 (2) the decision failed to recognize other legiti6 mate State interests which justify limiting money in 

7 campaigns, including the need to preserve the integ8 rity of our republican form of government, restore 

9 public confidence in government, and ensure all citi10 zens a more equal opportunity to participate in the 

11 political process. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBFK8HB2PROD with BILLS
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-23-00441-CR

Ron Guzman, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

NO. CR-06-137-A, THE HONORABLE R. BRUCE BOYER, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

In July 2006, Appellant Ron Guzman pleaded guilty of one count of indecency 

with a child and four counts of aggravated sexual assault of a child. See Tex. Penal Code 

§§ 21.11, 22.021. The trial court sentenced him to twenty-years’ imprisonment for the indecency

offense and forty-years’ imprisonment for each aggravated sexual assault offense to run 

concurrently pursuant to a plea agreement. See id. §§ 12.32, 12.33. He appeals from the trial 

court’s denial of his subsequent motion for forensic DNA testing. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. 

arts. 64.01 (explaining when convicted person may file motion requesting testing of DNA 

evidence), .03 (listing requirements for convicting court to order DNA testing).

Appellant’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw as counsel 

along with a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and presents no arguably meritorious 

issues. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California by presenting a professional 

evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. 
2

See 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Garner v. State, 300 S.W.3d 763, 766 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009); 

see also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 81–82 (1988). Appellant’s counsel has certified to this 

Court that he sent copies of the motion and brief to appellant, advised appellant of his right to 

examine the appellate record and file a pro se response, and provided a motion to assist appellant 

in obtaining the record. See Kelly v. State, 436 S.W.3d 313, 319–20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); see 

also Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Appellant filed a pro se response on July 9, 2024.

We have conducted an independent review of the record—including the record 

of the Chapter 64 proceedings, appellate counsel’s brief, and appellant’s pro se response—and 

find no reversible error. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; Garner, 300 S.W.3d at 766; Bledsoe 

v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826–27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). We agree with counsel that the 

record presents no arguably meritorious grounds for review and that the appeal is frivolous. 

We affirm the judgment and grant counsel’s motion to withdraw.

__________________________________________

Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Smith and Theofanis

Affirmed

Filed: August 23, 2024

Do Not Publish
November 8, 2012

Mr. Ken W. Hyde

The Wright Experience, Inc.

P.O. Box 3365

Warrenton, VA 20188

Dear Mr. Hyde:

This is in response to your January 30, 2012, letter (Docket No. FAA-2012-0119) petitioning the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an exemption from § 103.1(d) of Title 14, Code of 

Federal Regulations (14 CFR). The proposed exemption, if granted, would allow The Wright 

Experience, Inc., to operate its replica of the 1911 Wright Brother’s Glider at a weight more than 

155 pounds.

Your letter specifically states that the Wright brother’s original 1911 glider weighed 158 pounds. 

Also that, the cotton muslin fabric in that glider is no longer available and modern cotton muslin

is stronger but heavier. Additionally, your replica is equipped with an electronic recorder to 

record flight parameters. Consequently, the replica weighs 172 pounds which is 17 pounds over 

the limit for an unpowered ultralight vehicle under § 103.1(d).

A summary of your petition was published in the Federal Register on April 2, 2012 (77 FR 

19748). No comments were received.

Our review of your petition indicates that your proposed operations may be allowable via means 

other than an exemption to § 103.1(d).

The regulations already contain provisions for the type of activities that you propose. 

Specifically, § 21.191(a) provides for the issuance of a special airworthiness certificate in the 

experimental category for the purpose of research and development. Please, refer to our website 

(http://www.faa.gov) to contact the appropriate FAA Field Office that serves your geographic 

area for any guidance you may require regarding aircraft certification.
2

In summary, the operations you propose can be accomplished through the issuance of a special 

airworthiness certificate at the local (FAA Field Office) level. Therefore, the FAA will take no 

further action on your petition and Docket No. FAA-2012-0119 is being closed. 

Sincerely,

/s/

Michael J. Zenkovick

Acting Deputy Director, Flight Standards

 Service
1.           I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the
          period covered by this report on Form 10-K of BMW Vehicle Owner Trust 2022-A (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);
  2.           Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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;
  3.           Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under
          Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;
  4.           I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the
          compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under
          the servicing agreement in all material respects; and
 5.           All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their
          related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been
          included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.
    
 BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NA, LLCBy:
          /s/ Ole JensenName:
          Ole JensenTitle:
          Vice President – Finance & Chief Financial Officer