alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 21--SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

  Terre Haute First National Bank is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
Registrant. It is an national banking association. It is an Indiana
corporation. The bank conducts its business under the name of Terre Haute First
National Bank.

  First State Bank is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Registrant. It is a state
corporation in Indiana. The bank conducts its business under the name of First
State Bank.

  First Citizens State Bank of Newport is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
Registrant. It is a state corporation in Indiana. The bank conducts its business
under the name of First Citizens State Bank.

  First Farmers State Bank is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Registrant. It is
a state corporation in Indiana. The bank conducts its business under the name of
First Farmers State Bank.

  First Ridge Farm State Bank is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Registrant. It
is a state corporation in Illinois. The bank conducts its business under the
name of First Ridge Farm State Bank.

  First Parke State Bank is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Registrant. It is a
state corporation in Indiana. The bank conducts its business under the name of
First Parke State Bank.

  First National Bank of Marshall is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
Registrant. It is a national banking association. It is an Illinois
corporation. The bank conducts its business under the name of First National
Bank.

  First Crawford State Bank is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Registrant. It
is a state corporation in Illinois. The bank conducts its business under the
name of First Crawford State Bank.

  The Morris Plan Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Registrant. It is
a state corporation in Indiana. The company conducts its business under the name
of The Morris Plan Company of Terre Haute, Inc.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 111 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 111

Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Energy relating to 
   ``Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
                          Consumer Furnaces''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 1, 2024

Mrs. Fischbach (for herself, Mr. Fallon, Mr. Reschenthaler, Mr. Ellzey, 
Mr. Self, Mr. Posey, Mr. Crenshaw, Mr. Ogles, Ms. Stefanik, Mr. Jackson 
    of Texas, Mr. Clyde, Mrs. Miller of Illinois, Mr. Lamborn, Mr. 
Rosendale, Ms. Van Duyne, Ms. Tenney, Mr. Kustoff, Mr. Langworthy, Mr. 
  Rouzer, Ms. Hageman, Mr. Weber of Texas, Mrs. Harshbarger, Mr. Van 
 Drew, Mr. Grothman, Mr. Newhouse, Mrs. Lesko, Mr. Bost, Mr. Rose, Mr. 
 Palmer, Mr. Stauber, Mrs. Miller of West Virginia, Mr. Moolenaar, Mr. 
Finstad, Mr. Hudson, Mr. Norman, Mr. Estes, and Ms. Boebert) submitted 
the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                          Energy and Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Energy relating to 
   ``Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
                          Consumer Furnaces''.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress disapproves the 
rule submitted by the Department of Energy relating to ``Energy 
Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer 
Furnaces'' (88 Fed. Reg. 87502), and such rule shall have no force or 
effect.
                                 <all>
```
Dear Educators:

The White House Commission on the National Moment of Remembrance was established by Congress to put the "memorial" back in Memorial Day.  As a member of the Commission, I am writing to ask for your support to reclaim this noble holiday for its intended purpose of honoring those who have died in service to our great country.

Unfortunately, too many Americans have lost sight of the meaning of Memorial Day.  In fact, the idea of the Moment was born in 1996 when children touring our Nation's capital were asked what Memorial Day means and responded, "That's the day the pools open."

On Memorial Day, May 26, Americans will observe a National Moment of Remembrance everywhere at 3:00 p.m. local time.  The theme is "One Nation, One Moment."  We need your help to gain the broadest possible awareness and participation among young people.

Please let teachers and students know about the opportunity to participate in a new American tradition simply by pausing wherever they may be at 3:00 p.m. for one minute to reflect on our fallen heroes.  They can encourage their families and friends to join them.  If they are driving at 3:00 p.m., they can simply turn on their vehicles' headlights.  For schools that are in session after the holiday, teachers can ask students to recount how they observed the Moment of Remembrance.  This may be appropriate to integrate into end-of-year classes and activities.  A variety of tools are available at the official Web site, www.remember.gov.

I hope that all educators and students will join with the President and me in encouraging all Americans to honor the men and women who have died in service to our Nation and left us a legacy of service, a heritage of sacrifice, and the gift of freedom.  Let us never forget.

Thank you for your support and participation.

Sincerely,

/s/

Rod Paige

|Last Modified: 09/15/2004
|-------------------------
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

|                                        |
|----------------------------------------|
|                                        | PurposeFunding StatusEligibilityLaws, Regs, & GuidanceApplicant InfoResourcesAwardsFAQsPerformanceContacts |  |
| Office of Postsecondary Education Home |
|                                        |

The Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, as  amended provides the statutory authority for the issuance of bonds and the Advisory  board.   

The link below provides the program statute:
                - Title III, Part D of the *Higher Education Act of 1965*, as amended

                - Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR)

The program is governed by an agreement between the Department of Education and the Designated Bonding Authority (DBA).

Institutional Service Home

----

 

 Printable view

## How Do I Find...

          - Student loans, forgiveness
          - Higher Education Rulemaking
          - College accreditation
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - FAFSA
          - 1098, tax forms

More >

## Information About...

          - Elevating Teaching
          - Early Learning
          - Engage Every Student
          - Unlocking Career Success
          - Cybersecurity

 

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a Grant

Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works ClearinghouseOpen Data PlatformCOVID Relief Data

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy Program

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
          - vote.gov
Fourth Amendment to Credit Agreement



 Exhibit 10.5 
 FOURTH AMENDMENT TO CREDIT AGREEMENT 
 This FOURTH
Amendment to Credit Agreement (the “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of October 23, 2009, by and between BANK OF THE WEST (the “Bank”) and DIEDRICH COFFEE, INC. (the “Borrower”) with respect to the
following: 
 This Amendment shall be deemed to be a part of and subject to that certain Credit Agreement dated as of
November 4, 2005, as it may be amended from time to time, and any and all addenda and riders thereto (collectively the “Agreement”). Unless otherwise defined herein, all terms used in this Amendment shall have the same meanings as in
the Agreement. To the extent that any of the terms or provisions of this Amendment conflict with those contained in the Agreement, the terms and provisions contained herein shall control. 
 WHEREAS, the Borrower and the Bank mutually desire to extend and/or modify the Agreement. 
 NOW THEREFORE, for value received and hereby acknowledged, the Borrower and the Bank agree as follows: 
  

	1.	Extension of Expiration Date. The Expiration Date provided for in Section 1.1.8 of the Agreement shall be extended to October 31, 2010.


  

	2.	Change in Dollar Amount/Letter of Credit Facility. The dollar amount of the Letter of Credit Facility set forth in Section 2.1.1 of the Agreement is hereby
changed to be $500,000.00. 

  

	3.	Representations and Warranties. The Borrower hereby reaffirms the representations and warranties contained in the Agreement and represents that no event, which
with notice or lapse of time, could become an Event of Default, has occurred or is continuing. 

  

	4.	Confirmation of Other Terms and Conditions of the Agreement. Except as specifically provided in this Amendment, all other terms, conditions and covenants of the
Agreement unaffected by this Amendment shall remain unchanged and shall continue in full force and effect and the Borrower hereby covenants and agrees to perform and observe all terms, covenants and agreements provided for in the Agreement, as
hereby amended. 

  

	5.	Governing Law. This Amendment shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California to which jurisdiction the parties hereto
hereby consent and submit. 

  

	6.	Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which together shall constitute
one and the same instrument. 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been executed by the parties hereto as of
the date first hereinabove written. 
  

									
	BANK:	 		 	BORROWER:
			
	BANK OF THE WEST	 		 	DIEDRICH COFFEE, INC.
					
	BY:	 	/s/ Bruce Young	 		 	BY:	 	/s/ Sean McCarthy
	NAME:	 	Bruce Young, Vice President	 		 	NAME:	 	Sean McCarthy CFO
			
		 		 	ADDRESS:
			
		 		 	 28 Executive Park, Suite 200
 Irvine, CA 92614
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 34 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 34

   Expressing disapproval of the withdrawal by the Secretary of the 
Interior of approximately 225,504 acres of National Forest System lands 
 in Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties, Minnesota, from disposition 
      under the United States mineral and geothermal leasing laws.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 25, 2023

 Mr. Stauber submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing disapproval of the withdrawal by the Secretary of the 
Interior of approximately 225,504 acres of National Forest System lands 
 in Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties, Minnesota, from disposition 
      under the United States mineral and geothermal leasing laws.

Whereas the Property Clause of the Constitution (article IV, section 3, clause 
        2) vests in Congress the power to make needful rules and regulations 
        respecting the property belonging to the United States;
Whereas section 204(c) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 
        U.S.C. 1714(c)) provides that a withdrawal by the Secretary of the 
        Interior of 5,000 acres or more shall terminate and become ineffective 
        ``if the Congress has adopted a concurrent resolution stating that such 
        House does not approve the withdrawal''; and
Whereas, on January 31, 2023, the Secretary of the Interior issued Public Land 
        Order No. 7917 (88 Fed. Reg. 6308) that withdrew approximately 225,504 
        acres of National Forest System land in Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis 
        Counties, Minnesota, from disposition under the United States mineral 
        and geothermal leasing laws: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That Congress disapproves of the withdrawal by the Secretary of the 
Interior of approximately 225,504 acres of National Forest System lands 
in Cook, Lake, and Saint Louis Counties, Minnesota, from disposition 
under the United States mineral and geothermal leasing laws.
                                 <all>
```
FMF. .

1013 SE P 24 pl, 12: 41

, ^,^ i, ` ^

i " 1 hF 

### September 17, 2013 

# ErIVE 

# s`@Ar The Hon. Gina McCarthy Administrator United States Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20460 Re: Petition for Waiver of 2014 Renewable Fuel Standard Dear Administrator McCarthy: Delek Refining; Ltd.

- 

### (°`ISelek" or the "Company") respectfully submits this petition to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") for a partial waiver of the 2014 applicable volumes of the Renewable Fuel Standard ("RFS") pursuant to section 211(o)(7)(A) of the Clean Air Act.1 1 1 

### Delek is an obligated party pursuant to regulations promulgated by EPA to implement the RFS (40 C.F.R Part 80, Subpart M). The Company is thus a person subject to the requirements of subsection 211(o) of the Clean Air Act. Delek also is a member of the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers ("AFPM"). Existing EPA administrative and judicial precedent makes clear that AFPM has standing to file an RFS waiver petition on behalf of inember companies. Notwithstanding this understanding, Delek's submittal incorporates by reference the RFS waiver petition filed by AFPM and the American Petroleum Institute on August 13, 2013.

Respectfully submitted, 

# ,^/,A,44^ e.,44004111111^ Delek Refining, Ltd. Michael E. Norman Vice President — Environmental & Regulatory Affairs mike.norman@delekus.com/6l5.435.1402

" I See 42 U.S.C. § 7545(o)(7)(A). 7102 COMMERCE WAY • BRENTWOOD • TENNESSEE • 37027 425 MCMURREY DRIVE • TYLER . TEXAS • 75702 903.579.3400 • 903.579.3499 (FAX)

# ^" z ^ ^ ^ 

# ^ J .^ p ^ ^ \y/ N 6^i Q ^ r N J U O 

## M .-

d J 

## N .- (r^ ^ 

## o

rLL• 

### IN

irrrn M O 

### y N ^ o a0 ^ d ^ G ^ C ^ ^ edo d ^ 424aC/I



# = - N -l0 = et ^M 

### ^ m 

# =J - U 

# I ^ ^10^

^ c- - -
#### 3028.310 Contract clause for work on a Government installation.
Exhibit
      18.5





February
      7, 2007





Board
      of
      Directors


Central
      Illinois Light Company


300
      Liberty Street


Peoria,
      IL 61602








Dear
      Directors:





We
      are
      providing this letter to you for inclusion as an exhibit to Central Illinois
      Light Company’s (Company) Form 10-Q/A filing pursuant to Item 601 of Regulation
      S-K for the period ended September 30, 2005.





We
      have
      been provided a copy of the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, as amended,
      for the period ended September 30, 2005. The Company elected to change its
      method of accounting for emission allowances from the inventory model to the
      intangible asset model effective July 1, 2005. This change had no effect on
      the
      consolidated statements of income and cash flows, and resulted in an immaterial
      reclassification to the consolidated balance sheet. Because this change in
      accounting did not materially affect the consolidated financial statements,
      the
      change is not specifically disclosed in the financial statement footnotes
      included in the Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005. It
      should be understood that the preferability of one acceptable method of
      accounting over another for emission allowances has not been addressed in any
      authoritative accounting literature, and in expressing our concurrence below
      we
      have relied on management’s determination that this change in accounting
      principle is preferable. Based on our understanding of management’s reasons and
      justification for this change in accounting principle, and our discussions
      with
      management as to their judgment about the relevant business planning factors
      relating to the change, we concur with management that such change represents,
      in the Company’s
      circumstances, the adoption of a preferable accounting principle in conformity
      with Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 20, *Accounting
      Changes* .








Very
      truly yours,











/s/Pricewaterhouse
      Coopers LLP


PricewaterhouseCoopers
      LLP
#### Peter Heffinger *vs.*Minneapolis, Lyndale & Minnetonka Railway Company.

June 20, 1890.

Contributory Negligence. — Evidence of plaintiS’s contributory negligence *held*such as to justify the trial court in refusing to submit the case to the jury.

Appeal by plaintiff from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, *Hicks,*J., presiding, refusing a new trial, the action (brought to recover $é,850) having been dismissed at the trial at the close of the evidence for plaintiff.

*John H. Steele, Steele & Rees,*and *B. Davenport,*for appellant.

*M. B.*Koon, for respondent.

Vanderburgh, J.

The action of the trial court in dismissing this case upon the trial, at the close of the testimony offered by the plaintiff, is clearly warranted by the evidence showing the contributory negligence of the plaintiff. It is therefore entirely unnecessary to consider the question of defendant’s negligence, or the alleged errors of the court in its rulings upon testimony offered upon that branch of the case. The plaintiff was a laborer engaged in working upon a sewer then in process of construction in one of the streets of the city of Minneapolis, in which the tracks of the defendant were laid over which it operated its trains. The track then used had been removed over to the west side of the street, so as not to interfere with the work upon the sewer, and all the trains running both ways passed over this track. A portion of the dirt from the sewer was thrown out *504on the west side, and was piled up between the sewer and track, back to the point where the filling had been completed. Plaintiff had been at work a considerable distance from this point, and at the time in question had been ordered to go back there and assist in filling, and in doing so passed down on the west side of the sewer, and between it and the defendant’s track, on or along the dirt-pile which extended down to the track, and rendered the passage-way difficult and dangerous. While walking along the dirt-pile, and too near the track for safety, he suffered his attention to be drawn to the work on the sewer, and while so occupied was overtaken by the train, and was injured. The material facts are undisputed. He could have passed along the sidewalk with safety. The track was straight, and the view was sufficiently open and unobstructed, so that, with the exercise of ordinary care, he could have looked back and observed the approach of the train, and got out of the way seasonably. He knew the cars ran along there frequently, and he knew the place was dangerous, because of the proximity of the track. And it is as dangerous to be too near as upon the track. The plaintiff unquestionably was careless and negligent. He could not, therefore, recover. *Donaldson*v. *Milwaukee v. St. Paul Ry. Co.,*21 Minn. 293, 298; *Marty*v. *Chicago, St. Paul, M. & O. Ry. Co.,*38 Minn. 108, (35 N. W. Rep. 670;) *Reed*v. *Minneapolis Street Ry. Co.,*34 Minn. 557, (27 N. W. Rep. 77.)

Order affirmed.
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Case Number: Assigned/Issued By: 

Judge Name: Designated Magistrate Judge: 

FEE INFORMATION

Amount Due: $400.00 $46.00 $5.00 

IFP No Fee Other 

$505.00 

Number of Service Copies Date: 

(For Use by Fiscal Department Only) 

Amount Paid: Receipt #: 

Date Payment Rec’d: Fiscal Clerk: 

ISSUANCES

Summons Alias Summons 

Third Party Summons Lis Pendens 

Non Wage Garnishment Summons Abstract of Judgment 

Wage-Deduction Garnishment Summons 

Citation to Discover Assets 

Writ 

(Type of Writ) 

(Victim, Against and $ Amount) 

 Original and copies on as to 

(Date) 

G:\GDOCKET\OPERATIONS CLERK\Intake\FORMS 10/01/2014 

Case: 1:12-cv-02302 Document #: 13 Filed: 06/04/15 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:216
#### Joseph Bua, Individually and as Guardian ad Litem of Cynthia Bua, an Infant, et al., Respondents, v. Edward Fernandez, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

In an action: (1) by Cynthia Bua, an infant, to recover damages for personal injury, suffered as a consequence of walking into a glass door while she was a social visitor attempting to exit from the living room to the outside patio in the rear of defendants’ premises; and (2) by her father, Joseph Bua, for medical expenses and loss of services, the defendant Edward Fernandez appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered April 10, 1964 upon the court’s decision after a non jury trial, in favor of the plaintiffs. Judgment affirmed, with costs. In our opinion, the defendant’s liability was properly determined as a question of fact, since the glass was not made apparent by any warning device to one using the passageway *(Shannon*v. *Broadway & 41st St. Corp.,*272 App. Div. 1029, affd. 298 N. Y. 589). The infant plaintiff “having *‘*the status of a licensee ’, the defendant [landowner] owed him ‘ the duty to exercise reasonable care to disclose * s dangerous defects known to defendant and not likely to be discovered by plaintiff ’ ” *(Brzostowski*v. *Coca-Cola Co.,*16 A D 2d 196, 199). Under the circumstances here, whether the defendant owner properly discharged his duty was an issue of fact (cf. *Brzostowski*v. *Coca-Cola Co., supra).*Beldock, P. J., Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur; Ughetta and Christ, JJ., dissent and vote to reverse the judgment and to dismiss the complaint on the ground that under the circumstances here the glass door did not constitute a trap or hidden danger of which the infant plaintiff, a social *888visitor, was unaware; and hence the defendant owner did not have any duty to give said plaintiff special notice or warning with respect to such door.
#### Anna E. Blount, appellee, v. Chicago & West Towns Railway Company, appellant.

Gen. No. 30,746.

Action for negligent injury to automobile. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. John D. Biggs, Judge, presiding. Heard in the second division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1925.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed July 13, 1926.

William M. McEwen and Berthold L. Goldberg, for appellant.

John J. Sonsteby and Joseph O. MeKiernan, for appellee.

Mr. Presiding Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.
#### 2815.303 Responsibilities.

The HCA or designee is the agency head for the purposes of FAR 15.303(a).
#### 27.000 Scope of part.

This part prescribes the policies, procedures, solicitation provisions, and contract clauses pertaining to patents, data, and copyrights.