alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-4.1.1





 Exhibit 4.1.1 

AMENDMENT NO. 1 
 TO 

FOURTH AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT 

AND DECLARATION OF TRUST 
 OF 

WORLD GOLD TRUST 
 This Amendment
(this “Amendment”), dated as of February 6, 2020, is to the Fourth Amended and Restated Agreement and Declaration of Trust (the “Declaration of Trust”) of World Gold Trust (the “Trust”), dated
as of April 16, 2018 between WGC USA Asset Management Company, LLC, as the sponsor of the Trust (the “Sponsor”), and Delaware Trust Company, as the trustee of the Trust (the “Trustee”). 

WHEREAS, the London Bullion Market Association (the “LBMA”) published updated good delivery rules in December 2019 entitled
“Good Delivery List Rules”; 
 WHEREAS, the Sponsor and the Trustee propose to amend the Declaration of Trust to update the
definitions to reflect the most recent good delivery rules published by the LBMA and provide flexibility for any future changes to such rules; 

WHEREAS, Article VI of the Declaration of Trust provides, in pertinent part, that the Sponsor, in its sole discretion and without Shareholder
consent, may amend or otherwise supplement the Declaration of Trust by making an amendment; and 
 WHEREAS, all conditions and requirements
necessary to make this Amendment a valid instrument that is legally binding on the parties hereto and on the Shareholders have been satisfied. 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Sponsor and the Trustee agree as follows: 

1.    Section 1.03(w) of the Declaration of Trust is amended in its entirety to read as follows: 

 

	 	(w)    	 Reserved. 



2.    Section 1.03(t) of the Declaration of Trust is amended in its entirety to read as follows: 

(t)    “Gold” means gold bullion meeting the standards and specifications set forth in the good delivery rules
promulgated by the LBMA from time to time. 
 2.    Except as modified by this Amendment, the Declaration of Trust shall
remain unmodified and in full force and effect. 
 3.    Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment shall
have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Declaration of Trust. 












 4.    This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each
of which when executed and delivered shall be deemed an original, but together shall constitute one and the same amendment. 

5.    The Sponsor hereby authorizes and directs the Trustee to execute this Amendment. 

[Signatures appear on the following page.] 

  
 -2- 













 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Sponsor and the Trustee have duly executed and delivered this
Amendment as of the date first above written. 
  

			
	 WGC USA ASSET MANAGEMENT
 COMPANY,
LLC,
 as Sponsor

		
	By:	 	 /s/ Laura S. Melman

	Name:	 	Laura S. Melman
	Title:	 	Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
	
	 DELAWARE TRUST COMPANY,
 as
Trustee

		
	By:	 	 /s/ Alan R. Halpern

	Name:	 	Alan R. Halpern
	Title:	 	Vice President


  
 [Signature Page to Amendment
No. 1 to Declaration of Trust of World Gold Trust] 

  
 -3-
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 478

To amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Federal government from

requiring State plans to mandate trip reduction measures.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 11, 1995

Mr. DELAY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Commerce

A BILL

To amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit the Federal government from requiring State plans to mandate trip reduction measures.

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF CLEAN AIR ACT TO REMOVE

4 TRIP REDUCTION MANDATE.

5 Section 182(c)(5) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.

6 7401 and following) is amended by adding at the end

7 thereof the following: ‘‘No revision of a State implementa8 tion plan to include provisions specified in this paragraph
2

•HR 478 IH

1 shall be required to include measures described in section

2 108(f)(A)(iv).’’.

Æ
#### Joe Wilson v. State.

No. 25693.

February 6, 1952.

Hon. Walter S. Pope, Jr., Judge Presiding.

No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

WOODLEY, Judge.

The conviction is for the sale of beer in a dry area, the jury having assessed the punishment at 12 months in jail and a fine of $350.

The evidence fully sustains the charge that appellant sold beer in an admittedly dry area to the person named in the complaint and information.

According to the lone bill of exception, complaining of the charge of the court in submitting the question of enhancement of the punishment, the complaint, information and judgment admitted in evidence, but not read to the jury, showed a final conviction for the sale of beer in a dry area as here alleged for the purpose of enhancing the punishment.

The objection to the court’s charge reads as follows:

> *640“Defendant excepts to the charge of the court for this: That same submits issues and matters not properly pleaded nor proved in that it submits to the jury the alleged prior conviction of the defendant in Cause No. 14,127 in this Court, and authorizes the enhancement of the punishment of defendant in this case because of such alleged prior conviction, in the event of a conviction for the offense charged in this present case. Wherefore defendant excepts to the charge of the Court and prays judgment of the Court.”

The punishment assessed by the jury is not in excess of that provided for the offense charged, and it is not shown that the punishment assessed was enhanced by reason of the prior conviction.

Under these facts, the bill complaining of the court’s charge shows no error requiring reversal of the conviction.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the court.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 31, 2021

NO. 03-21-00083-CV

City of Austin, Appellant

v.

Maria Furtado, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 53RD DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, TRIANA, AND KELLY

REVERSED AND REMANDED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE KELLY;

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION BY JUSTICE TRIANA

This is an appeal from the interlocutory order signed by the trial court on December 15, 2020. 

Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible 

error in the order. Therefore, the Court reverses the trial court’s interlocutory order and remands 

the case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the Court’s opinion. Each party

shall pay the costs of appeal incurred by that party, both in this Court and in the court below.
#### Jessie CROWLEY, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. FIRST NATIONAL LIFE, HEALTH & ACCIDENT INS. CO., Defendant and Appellant.

No. 14448.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Feb. 27, 1933.

Normann & McMahon and Harold M. Roue-hell, all of New Orleans, for appellant.

Wm. A. Green, of New Orleans, for appel-lee.

JANVIER, Judge.

This is a suit under an industrial life insurance policy-. The accident is admitted, as is, also, the fact that plaintiff was for a time -disabled. Defendant contends that full settlement has -been made and that during the time for which claim is now presented the petitioner was entirely well and could have returned to work had he been willing to do so.

The injury was to the testicles, and all of the physicians, two who felt that recovery was complete and one who testified to the ■contrary, stated that usually, and unless •.there are complications, such an injury as ■plaintiff sustained should cause disability for ■not more than two or three months. They ■all agreed that there had been no complications, and yet it is contended that recovery was not complete at the end of fifteen weeks and that compensation should be paid for five additional weeks.

Those physicians who stated that recovery was complete at the end of fifteen weeks were positive in their views and, apparently, well recollected the details of the injury and of the progress of recovery; whereas, the other physician based his opinion almost entirely on the fact that plaintiff continued to complain. Furthermore, the physician last referred to had a very slight independent recollection of the matter, and his opinion that plaintiff had not entirely recovered largely resulted from the fact that, after the date of the alleged recovery, he (the physician) continued to prescribe for the supposed sufferer.

We are convinced that plaintiff had recovered at the time defendant refused to make further payments to him and that the judgment, which is in favor of plaintiff, is erroneous.

The judgment appealed from is annulled, avoided, and reversed, and there is now judgment in favor of defendant and against the plaintiff, dismissing plaintiff’s suit at his cost.

Reversed.
#### Billy Hardin v. State.

No. 25,817.

May 7, 1952.

Hon. R. W. Williford, Judge Presiding.

No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

*George P. Blackbm*n,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the sthte.

MORRISON, Judge.

The appellant in this case was indicted for robbery by assault.

The defense of insanity was interposed. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned the following verdict:

> “We, the jury, find the defendant to have been sane at the time the act is alleged to have been committed but insane at the time of this trial.”

The judgment of the court recited the above verdict and ordered “that all further proceedings herein against him be and are suspended until he becomes sane,” remanded the accused to the custody of the sheriff and certified the proceedings to the county judge for his information and action in accordance with Article 932a, C. C. P.

The state contends that this court is without jurisdiction to entertain this appeal.

*284The accused has not here been found guilty of anything, and no punishment has been assessed; therefore, this is not a “criminal case” within the meaning of Article 5, Section 5 of the Constitution, which defines the jurisdiction of this court. Griffin v. State, 115 Tex. Cr. R. 306, 29 S. W. (2d) 349.

The appeal is dismissed.
18533.

#### JACKSON *et al. v.*JACKSON *et al.*

Submitted March 9, 1954

Decided April 14, 1954

Rehearing denied Mat 13, 1954.

*646
      *Culpepper & Culpepper, Geo. B. Culpepper,*for plaintiffs in error.

*A. C. Felton, III,*contra.

Head, Justice.

The amended grounds of the motion for new trial amount to no more than an attempt to elaborate upon the general grounds. Therefore, the sole question before this court is whether there is any new and material evidence offered by the plaintiffs of so substantial a nature as to support a finding for them.

The opinion of the trial judge clearly shows that at the last trial there was no new evidence of a substantial and material character, nor any substantial variation from the evidence produced on the former trials. The judge did not elaborate upon the testimony of the witness W. A. Williams. This witness testified in regard to a conversation had by him with Mary Ella Kendrick, one of the defendants, the substance of his testimony being: “She [Mary Ella Kendrick] said that all she got out of the estate was $300 and didn’t know anything about the rest of this money. She said some of the relatives offered her $300 to sign a check for some money in Atlanta. She said some of Sam’s *647boys offered her $300 to sign the check. She said they gave her $300. She said she didn’t know what the amount of money was in the bank but that if the white people had told her about this money she never would have signed that check.” This evidence was not offered for the purpose of impeaching the witness, Mary Ella Kendrick. If it was admissible for any purpose (and no ruling is made as to its admissibility, since this question is not before us), and if the evidence should be accepted as true, it is not at substantial variance with the testimony of Mary Ella Kendrick.

The trial judge correctly ruled that, under the law of the case, he was required to find for the defendants.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

Head, Justice,

concurring specially. On the second review of this case *(Jackson*v. *Jackson,*209 *Ga.*85, 70 S. E. 2d 592), I was of the opinion that there was a substantial variation in the evidence favorable to the plaintiff, and that the former decision *(Jackson*v. *Jackson,*206 *Ga.*470, 57 S. E. 2d 602), was not, therefore, controlling. The majority of this court ruled to the contrary. I now feel that I am bound not only by the first opinion, which was a full-bench decision, but by the majority opinion on the second appearance of the case. I have carefully examined the evidence of all three cases insofar as it is material to a judgment in the present case, and I am convinced that the trial judge arrived at the correct conclusion under the former rulings of this court.
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 592

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to repeal the provision

allowing adjustment of status of unlawful aliens in the United States.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 19, 1995

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

Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to repeal

the provision allowing adjustment of status of unlawful

aliens in the United States.

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

3 SECTION 1. REPEAL OF ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS OF UN4 LAWFUL ALIENS.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (i) of section 245 of

6 the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255), as

7 added by section 605(b) of the Department of State and

8 Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1995 (Public Law

9 103–317, 108 stat. 1765), is repealed.
2

•HR 592 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The repeal made by sub2 section (a) shall apply to applications for adjustment of

3 status filed before, on, or after the date of the enactment

4 of this Act, except such applications as were approved as

5 of the date of the enactment of this Act. In the case of

6 such an application for adjustment filed, but not approved,

7 as of the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney

8 General shall promptly refund to the applicant the amount

9 of the application fee paid.

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 159 (Friday, August 15, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 47818]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18859]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 26

[Docket No. FAA-2004-18379; Amendment No. 26-0]
RIN 2120-AI31


Enhanced Airworthiness Program for Airplane Systems/Fuel Tank 
Safety (EAPAS/FTS); Technical Correction

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; technical correction.

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

SUMMARY: This final rule corrects a subpart heading in the Code of 
Federal Regulations. The heading was inadvertently misstated when the 
FAA published the rule in November 2007.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective August 15, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Annette K. Kovite, ANM-113, 
Standardization Branch, Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind 
Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057, telephone: 425-227-1262, facsimile: 425-
227-1320, e-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#084966666d7c7c6d2643677e617c6d486e6969266f677e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c081aeaea5b4b4a5ee8bafb6a9b4a580a6a1a1eea7afb6">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On November 8, 2007, the FAA published a final rule to establish 
part 26 in the Code of Federal Regulations (72 FR 63364). The heading 
for subpart B of that part contained the phrase ``aging systems'' 
instead of the intended ``airplane systems.'' This final rule corrects 
that error.

Justification for Immediate Adoption

    Because this action corrects merely a typographical error, the FAA 
finds that notice and public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is 
unnecessary. For the same reason, the FAA finds that good cause exists 
under 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this rule effective upon publication.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 26

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Continued airworthiness.

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration 
amends Chapter I of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations part 26 as 
follows:

PART 26--CONTINUED AIRWORTHINESS AND SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS FOR 
TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES

0
1. The authority citation for part 26 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702 and 44704.

Subpart B--Enhanced Airworthiness Program for Airplane Systems

0
2. The heading for subpart B is revised to read as set forth above.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 11, 2008.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Director, Office of Rulemaking, Aviation Safety.
[FR Doc. E8-18859 Filed 8-14-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 157 (Wednesday, August 13, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47249-47250]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18781]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 6314]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Louvre Atlanta: The Louvre and the Masterpiece''

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236 
of October 19, 1999, as amended, and Delegation of Authority No. 257 of 
April 15, 2003 [68 FR 19875], I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Louvre Atlanta: The Louvre and the 
Masterpiece,'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the 
United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported 
pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owner or custodian. I also 
determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at the 
High Museum of Art, Atlanta, GA, from on or about October 11, 2008, 
until on or about September 6, 2009; at the Minneapolis Institute of 
Arts, Minneapolis, MN, from on or about October 18, 2009, to on or 
about January 10, 2010; and at possible additional exhibitions or 
venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. Public Notice 
of these Determinations is ordered to be published in the Federal 
Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the exhibit objects, contact Carol B. Epstein, Attorney-
Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State 
(telephone: 202/453-8048). The address is U.S. Department of State, SA-
44, 301 4th Street, SW., Room 700, Washington, DC 20547-0001.


[[Page 47250]]


    Dated: August 6, 2008.
C. Miller Crouch,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural 
Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. E8-18781 Filed 8-12-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
Exhibit 32.2

 

**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 Quarterly Report of GCI, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John M. Lowber, 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. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| November 5, 2007 |   | /s/ John M. Lowber      |
|------------------|--------|-------------------------|
| Date             |   | John M. Lowber          |
|             |   | Chief Financial Officer |
|             |   | GCI, Inc.               |

 

 

 

1
Exhibit 32.2

Certification by 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 The Pantry, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended September 27, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Frank G. Paci, Senior Vice PresidentFinance, and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, 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 results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/S/    FRANK G.
PACIFrank G. PaciSr. Vice President, Finance, Chief Financial Officer and SecretaryDate: November 26, 2007


This Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and shall not be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the date of this Report, irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
documents authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.