alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 245 (Monday, December 21, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 83084]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-28109]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank 
holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the 
applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 
1817(j)(7)).
    The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as 
other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for 
immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and 
at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be 
obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the 
appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of 
Information Office at https://www.federalreserve.gov/foia/request.htm. 
Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards 
enumerated in paragraph 7 of the Act.
    Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at 
the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, 
Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution 
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than January 5, 2021.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (Robert L. Triplett III, Senior 
Vice President) 2200 North Pearl Street, Dallas, Texas 75201-2272:
    1. Robert G. Good, Calvin J. Good, Hannah G. Good, all of Corrales, 
New Mexico; Cynthia Alysce Good, Robert A. Good, and Natalie G. Good, 
all of Arlington, Massachusetts; to join the Graves-Good Family Group, 
a group acting in concert, to retain voting shares of Goldthwaite 
Bancshares, Inc., and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of 
MCBank, both of Goldthwaite, Texas.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, December 16, 
2020.
Michele Taylor Fennell,
Deputy Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2020-28109 Filed 12-18-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
NAME                                               JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION
-------------------------------------------        -----------------------------
<S>                                                <C>
The National City Bank of Evansville               United States
First Kentucky Bank                                Commonwealth of Kentucky
The Bank of Mitchell                               State of Indiana
NCBE Leasing Corp.                                 State of Indiana
White County Bank                                  State of Illinois
Twenty-One Southeast Third Corporation             State of Indiana
Bank of Illinois, National Association             United States
First National Bank of Bridgeport                  United States
First Bank of Huntingburg                          State of Indiana
NCBE Capital Trust I                               State of Delaware
Illinois One Bank, National Association            United States
Community First Bank, National Association         United States
Trigg County Farmers Bank                          Commonwealth of Kentucky
The Ripley County Bank                             State of Indiana
The Progressive Bank, National Association         United States
</TABLE>
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2023204EN.01004301.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 12.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 204/43 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.11103 – PUBLIC POWER CORPORATION / ENEL ROMANIA)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 204/18)

1.

On 31 May 2023, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2023204EN.01004301-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Public Power Corporation S.A. (‘PPC’, Greece), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | The operations of Enel S.p.A. (‘Enel’, Italy) in Romania (‘Enel Romania’). |

PPC will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of Enel Romania, which consists of the following entities (which are all incorporated in Romania): Enel Romania S.A., E-Distributie Muntenia S.A., Enel Energie Muntenia S.A., E-Distributie Dobrogea S.A., E-Distributie Banat S.A., Enel Energie S.A., Enel Green Power Romania S.R.L., Enel X Romania S.R.L., Enel X Way Romania S.R.L, and their subsidiaries.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are the following:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | PPC is active in generation, supply and distribution of electricity, principally in Greece, |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | Enel Romania is active in the generation, distribution and supply of electricity in Romania, as well as the supply of natural gas in Romania and the provision of related services. |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2023204EN.01004301-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.11103 – PUBLIC POWER CORPORATION / ENEL ROMANIA

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Postal address:

| |
| --- |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2023204EN.01004301-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2023204EN.01004301-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                              1,000

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                         SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                  812,520
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                           549,482
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                           1,366,915
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      2,775,116
<PP&E>                                   34,097
<DEPRECIATION>                          (24,502)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        2,784,911
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   215,551
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                            2,569,360
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          2,784,911
<SALES>                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      2,058,221
<CGS>                                 1,105,191
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         1,105,191
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        671,713
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          793
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         280,524
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     280,524
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                            280,524
<EPS-BASIC>                                0.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0



</TABLE>
CHRIS DANIEL

HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT CLERK

1201 Franklin P.O. Box 4651 Houston, Texas 77210-4651

 

February 20, 2015

DAUCIE SCHINDLER

ATTORNEY OF RECORD

1201 FRANKLIN, 13TH FL

HOUSTOIN. TX 77002

Defendant’s Name: WILLIAM MARKS

Cause No: 1852393

Court: COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT AT LAW # 7 

Please note the following appeal updates on the above mentioned cause:

Notice of Appeal Filed Date: 1/07/15

Sentence Imposed Date: 1/07/15

Court of Appeals Assignment: Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

Appeal Attorney of Record: DAUCIE SCHINDLER

Motion for New Trial Filed: 2/03/15

Sincerely,

S. NORRIS

Criminal Post Trial Deputy

CC: Devon Anderson

 District Attorney

 Appellate Division

 Harris County, Texas

 SANDRA POWELL (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)

This is your notice to inform any and all substitute reporters in this cause.

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 3/26/2015 4:11:22 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
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 Constar International Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
William S. Rymer, Executive Vice President 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, 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/    WILLIAM S. RYMER                                              
|William S. Rymer Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
|                                                                     
|November 9, 2004
#### SMITH v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12108.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

April 20, 1954.

*958Wilbur F. Smith, pro se.

George E. Woods, Asst. U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich. (Fred W. Kaess, U. S. Atty., George E. Woods, Asst. U. S. Atty., Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for appellee.

Before SIMONS, Chief Judge, and MCALLISTER and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant was indicted and convicted and sentenced on each of two counts for stealing letters from the mails, the sentences to run consecutively. The appellant contends that there was but one offense and having served the sentence on the first count, he should be released from custody. Both counts are identical except for the allegation in each of a differing addressee of the letter abstracted from the mails.

The appellant pleaded guilty to both counts. Both letters were taken by the appellant, a mailcarrier while delivering mail, on the same day, and there is nothing in either count of the indictment that would in anyway indicate that there was any difference in time or place in their abstraction, or that either was taken in response to a separately formed criminal intent, and nothing to suggest that their abstraction was selective. In these circumstances, we conclude that the theft of both letters was either simultaneous, or that the theft was continuous. There was, therefore, but a single offense, and one of the counts was void and cannot support the double or cumulative sentence. Johnston, Warden v. Lagomarsino, 9 Cir., 88 F.2d 86; Kerr v. Squier, 9 Cir., 151 F.2d 308.

McKee v. Johnston, Warden, 9 Cir., 109 F.2d 273, is urged upon us as in conflict with the above holdings. While we express no view as to the persuasiveness of the discussion therein, the case is clearly distinguishable because in that case a number of mailbags were cut open and rifled and the cutting of a mailbag is an offense separate from the theft under the provisions of the statute, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1709. The sentence under the second count of the indictment is void and should be expunged. If the appellant has served the full sentence under count One, he must be released.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .



                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

<Table>
<Caption>
NAME                                                        JURISDICTION OF INCORPORATION
---------------------------------------------------------   ------------------------------

<S>                                                         <C>
Integra Bank NA                                             United States
* IBNK Leasing Corp.                                        State of Indiana
* West Kentucky Insurance and Financial Services, Inc.      Commonwealth of Kentucky
* Integra Illinois Investment Co., LLC                      State of Delaware
** Integra Loan Company, LLC                                State of Delaware
*** Total Title Services, LLC                               State of Indiana
Integra Capital Trust II                                    State of Delaware
Integra Capital Statutory Trust III                         State of Connecticut
Integra Reinsurance Company, LTD                            Turks and Caicos Islands
</Table>

*-   Wholly owned subsidiary of Integra Bank NA

**-  Ninety-nine percent owned by Integra Illinois Investment Co., LLC and one
     percent owned by Integra Bank NA

***- Seventy-one percent ownership by Integra Bank NA
#### § 47.91 Exemptions from the HazCom standard.

A hazardous chemical is exempt from this part under the conditions described in Table 47.91 as follows:

| Exemption | Conditions for exemption |
| --- | --- |
| Article | If, under normal conditions of use, it— |
| | (1) Releases no more than insignificant amounts of a hazardous chemical, and |
| | (2) Poses no physical or health risk to exposed miners. |
| Biological hazards | All biological hazards, such as poisonous plants, insects, and micro-organisms. |
| Consumer product or hazardous substance regulated by CPSC | (1) If the miner uses it for the purpose the manufacturer intended; and |
| | (2) Such use does not expose the miner more often and for longer periods than *ordinary consumer use.* |
| Cosmetics, drugs, food, food additive, color additive, drinks, alcoholic beverages, tobacco and tobacco products, or medical or veterinary device or product, including materials intended for use as ingredients in such products (such as flavors and fragrances) | When intended for personal consumption or use. |
| Radiation | All ionizing or non-ionizing radiation, such as alpha or gamma, microwaves, or x-rays. |
| Wood or wood products, including lumber | If they do not release or otherwise result in exposure to a hazardous chemical under normal conditions of use. For example, wood is not exempt if it is treated with a hazardous chemical or if it will be subsequently cut or sanded. |

Table 47.91—Chemicals and Products Exempt from this HazCom Standard
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 2**  **284**

In re: TIMOTHY GOVERNOR ALEXANDER , P etitioner
.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus
. ( 3:04

- cr - 00197

- RJC

- DCK

- 1 ; 3:10

- cv - 00324

- RJC )

Submitted : January 22, 2013 Decided: January 24, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion
. Timothy Governor Alexander, Petitioner Pro Se
. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Timothy Governor Alexander petitions for a writ of mandamus, alleging the district court has unduly delayed acting on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion . He seeks an order from this court directing the district court to act. Ou r review of the district court’s docket reveals that , on November 20, 2012, the district court dismissed Alexander’s § 2255 motion. Accordingly, because the district court has recently decided Alexander ’s case, we deny the mandamus petition as moot. We g rant leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
#### (A) Joseph Lenahan, an Infant, by John Lenahan, His Guardian ad Litem, et al. v. Sol Siegal. (B) In the Matter of Robin E. Roberts et al., as Player Members of the Pension Committee of the Major League Baseball Players’ *612Pension Plan, v. John W. Galbreath et al., Club Owner Members of the Pension Committtee of the Major League Baseball Players’ Pension Plan.

Motion to dismiss appeal granted, with $10 costs. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ.
#### Bertha L. Hunter, as Administratrix of the Estate of James Hunter, Deceased, Respondent, v. 1001 Tenants Corporation et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

In an action to recover damages for the wrongful death of plaintiff’s decedent (her husband), the corporate defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 2, 1962, which denied their motion to examine plaintiff before trial as a witness and for discovery and inspection of the decedent’s income tax returns for specified years. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements *{Boer*v. *Oak Vale*Estates, 17 A D 2d 826; *Romito*v. *Bourjois, Inc.,*16 A D 2d 982). Beldoek, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Hill and Rabin, JJ., concur.
## Subtitle IV—Aeronautics and Space Research and Education
### The Lyon Station-Paulins Kill nappe: The frontal structure of the Musconetcong nappe system in eastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey

By: Avery Ala Drake Jr.

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/pp1023

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf) 
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 9897 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 9897

To amend section 3559 of title 18, United States Code, to provide that 
   a misdemeanor for which no punishment or no maximum punishment is 
  prescribed by statute shall be punishable as a Class A misdemeanor.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 1, 2024

 Mr. Griffith introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend section 3559 of title 18, United States Code, to provide that 
   a misdemeanor for which no punishment or no maximum punishment is 
  prescribed by statute shall be punishable as a Class A misdemeanor.

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

SECTION 1. CLASS A MISDEMEANOR.

    Section 3559 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding 
at the end the following:
    ``(h) Class A Misdemeanor.--Any person who willfully and knowingly 
violates a provision of Federal law, for which no punishment is 
prescribed for such violation under statute, shall be guilty of a Class 
A misdemeanor.''.
                                 <all>
```
§ 762.12 Additional criteria. ( a ) A State regulatory authority may establish additional or more stringent criteria for determining whether lands within the State should be designated as unsuitable for coal mining operations. Such criteria shall be approved pursuant to subchapter C of this chapter.
( b ) The Secretary may establish additional criteria for determining whether Federal lands should be designated as unsuitable for surface mining operations.
( c ) Additional criteria will be determined to be more stringent on the basis of whether they provide for greater protection of the public health, safety and welfare or the environment, such that areas beyond those specified in the criteria of this part would be designated as unsuitable for surface coal mining operations.
#### NORTH, Respondent, v. NORTH, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

February 15, 1905.)

Action by Rosa North against Samuel North.

PER CURIAM.

Orders affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.

HOOKER, J., not voting.