alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 21.1
                   Subsidiaries of Omega Financial Corporation

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Name of Subsidiary                                         State or Jurisdiction          Trade Name
                                                             of Incorporation              (if any)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                        <C>                             <C> 
Omega Bank, N.A.                                              United States                   --
P.O. Box 298
State College, PA    16804

Hollidaysburg Trust Company                                   Pennsylvania                    --
224 Allegheny Street
Hollidaysburg, PA  16648

Penn Central National Bank                                    United States                   --
431 Penn Street
Huntingdon, PA  16652

Central Pennsylvania Investment Company                       Delaware                        --
1105 N. Market Street
Wilmington, DE 19899

Central Pennsylvania Life Insurance Company                   Arizona                         --
1421 E. Thomas Road
Phoenix, AZ  85014

Central Pennsylvania Leasing, Inc.                            Pennsylvania                    --

Central Pennsylvania Real Estate, Inc.                        Pennsylvania                    --
</TABLE>


                                       27

<PAGE>
Editorial Note on Part 411
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 411 appear at 71 FR 9471, Feb. 24, 2006

§ 411.22 Reimbursement obligations of primary payers and entities that received payment from primary payers. ( a ) A primary payer, and an entity that receives payment from a primary payer, must reimburse CMS for any payment if it is demonstrated that the primary payer has or had a responsibility to make payment.
( b ) A primary payer's responsibility for payment may be demonstrated by— ( 1 ) A judgment;
( 2 ) A payment conditioned upon the recipient's compromise, waiver, or release (whether or not there is a determination or admission of liability) of payment for items or services included in a claim against the primary payer or the primary payer's insured; or
( 3 ) By other means, including but not limited to a settlement, award, or contractual obligation.
( c ) The primary payer must make payment to either of the following: ( 1 ) To the entity designated to receive repayments if the demonstration of primary payer responsibilities is other than receipt of a recovery demand letter from CMS or designated contractor.
( 2 ) As directed in a recovery demand letter.
[71 FR 9470, Feb. 24, 2006, as amended at 73 FR 9684, Feb. 22, 2008]
### 

### 

        -  ******** 

									{{globals.continue}} **testmodule_progress={{module_progress}}									{{globals.continue}} **										Chinese (set score 95)																			Korean (set score 96)																			Spanish (set score 97)																			Vietnamese (set score 98)																			LMS Exit									

##### 					{{section.active_controller}}{{section.page}}sheet={{section.sheet}}section_num={{$index+1}}

					SET PROGRESS				

#### 

#### 

## 

#### 

#### 

****

              -   

#### Complete
# C_2005193EN.01002601.xml

| 6.8.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 193/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.8.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 193/26

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

of 8 June 2005

in Case T-315/03 Hans-Peter Wilfer v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Word mark ROCKBASS - Absolute grounds for refusal - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Examination of the facts by the Board of Appeal of its own motion - Failure to take into account evidence produced by the applicant - Article 74(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94)

(2005/C 193/42)

Language of the case: German

In Case T-315/03: Hans-Peter Wilfer, resident in Markneukirchen (Germany), represented by A. Kockläuner, lawyer, against the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Agents: D. Schennen and G. Schneider) — action against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 11 July 2003 in Case R 266/2002-1 concerning registration of the word sign ROCKBASS as a Community trade mark — the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber), composed of H. Legal, President, P. Lindh and V. Vadapalas, Judges; I. Natsinas, Administrator, for the Registrar, gave a judgment on 8 June 2005, in which it:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the applicant to pay three-quarters of its own costs and three-quarters of the costs incurred by OHIM; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the applicant to pay three-quarters of its own costs and three-quarters of the costs incurred by OHIM;

| 3. | Orders OHIM to pay one quarter of its own costs and one quarter of the costs incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders OHIM to pay one quarter of its own costs and one quarter of the costs incurred by the applicant.

---

(1)  OJ C 289 of 29.11.2003.

1

---
#### Robert Charles GARRETT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. NN-191.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Aug. 15, 1980.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 24, 1980.

Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, and Margaret Good and Louis G. Carres, Asst. Public Defenders, for appellant.

Jim Smith, Atty. Gen., and Miguel A. Olivella, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

*1249PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERT P. SMITH, Jr. and BOOTH, JJ., concur.

SHIVERS, J., dissents with opinion.

SHIVERS, Judge,

dissenting:

I dissent. Garrett was convicted of robbery and carrying a firearm during the commission of a crime. The heart of his defense was that he was incapable of forming the requisite felonious intent1 at the time of the offense due to the mixture of alcohol and drugs (marijuana and valium) he had ingested. Members of Garrett’s family testified as to the “stupor” or “catatonic” state Garrett was in shortly after his apprehension. At issue is the refusal of the trial court to admit into evidence the testimony of Dr. Edmund R. Kielman, Chief Medical Examiner for the First Judicial Circuit. The majority holds Dr. Kielman’s testimony was properly excluded because the defense violated discovery rules. I disagree.

The defense initiated pretrial discovery pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.220. The State filed a response with Garrett’s codefendant but no copy of the response was served on Garrett. The only discovery was the exchange of witness praecipes. Dr. Kielman was not subpoenaed. Therefore, the State had no notice the defense intended to call Dr. Kielman until the third day of the trial. The trial court refused to permit Dr. Kiel-man to testify after inquiring as to the nature of the doctor’s testimony and the reason his name was not previously disclosed. The trial court did not inquire into other possible methods of curing any prejudice to the prosecution before imposing the extreme sanction of excluding the testimony. The trial court summarily rejected the defense’s suggestion that the trial be recessed to permit the State to depose Dr. Kielman. There was no inquiry as to the length of time it would take the State to locate expert witnesses to rebut Dr. Kiel-man’s testimony. The failure of the trial court to inquire into these matters requires reversal.2

Additionally, examination of Dr. Kiel-man’s proffered testimony discloses that he merely testified as to accepted medical facts as to the combined effect that alcohol, marijuana, and valium have on the human body. Dr. Kielman did not testify that in his opinion the defendant was incapable of forming the felonious intent at the time of the offense. Dr. Kielman’s testimony was limited to hypothetical questions. Dr. Kiel-man’s testimony was crucial to the defendant’s case.

I would reverse for a new trial.

1

. *Bell v. State*(Fla.1980) (1980 FLW 114).

2

. *Richardson v. State,*246 So.2d 771 (Fla.1971); *Lavigne v. State,*349 So.2d 178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-13-00566-CV

C.L. Thomas, Inc. and Thomas Fuels Lubricants & Chemicals, Inc.

v.

Lexington Insurance Company and Acordia of Texas, Inc.

On Appeal from the

377th District Court of Victoria County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 09-9-69174-D

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed in part and reversed 

in part, and the case should be remanded to the trial court. The Court orders the 

judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART, and the 

case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Costs of the 

appeal are adjudged 50% against appellant and against appellee.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

September 11, 2014
HomeUkraine

# Ukraine

1741 items

        -    DipNote  		‘I have come to Ukraine with a message: You are not alone.’	  Antony J. BlinkenMay 16, 2024 
        -    Testimony  		Testimony Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: The Future of Arms Control and Deterrence	  Bonnie Denise JenkinsMay 15, 2024Senate Foreign Relations CommitteeWashington, D.C. 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba at a Joint Press Availability	  Antony J. BlinkenMay 15, 2024Ministry of Foreign AffairsKyiv, Ukraine 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba Before Their Meeting	  May 15, 2024 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken And U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine’s Economic Recovery Penny Pritzker At a Visit to Esper Bionics	  Antony J. BlinkenMay 15, 2024Esper BionicsKyiv, Ukraine 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken At a Visit to an Agricultural Logistics and Transshipment Partner Facility	  Antony J. BlinkenMay 15, 2024Kyiv, Ukraine 
        -    Speech  		A Free, Prosperous, and Secure Future for Ukraine	  Antony J. BlinkenMay 14, 2024Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic InstituteKyiv, Ukraine 
        -    Department Press Briefing  		Department Press Briefing – May 14, 2024	  Vedant PatelMay 14, 2024Washington, D.C. 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary Antony J. Blinken at a Music Drop By	  Antony J. BlinkenMay 14, 2024Barman DictatKyiv, Ukraine 
        -    Remarks  		Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken and Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal Before Their Meeting	  Antony J. BlinkenMay 14, 2024Prime Minister’s OfficeKyiv, Ukraine 

previous page123456…175next page

Back to Top
§ 137.85 Is the Secretary prohibited from failing or refusing to transfer funds that are due to a Self-Governance Tribe under Title V? Yes, sections 508(d)(1)(A) and (B) of the Act [25 U.S.C. 458aaa-7(d)(1)(A) and (B)] expressly prohibit the Secretary from: ( a ) Failing or refusing to transfer to a Self-Governance Tribe its full share of any central, headquarters, regional, area, or service unit office or other funds due under Title V, except as required by Federal law, and
( b ) From withholding portions of such funds for transfer over a period of years.
#### Anna HAAG and Clifford O. Larson, Appellants, v. The MONSANTO COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 74-127.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 25, 1975.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,919
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    10,163,214
<OTHER-SE>                                (10,172,133)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,545
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (28,545)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (28,545)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (28,545)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Fonnie HOLLY v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 55161.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 20, 1974.

In re: Fonnie Holly, applying for writ of Certiorari and Habeas Corpus.

Application denied. All questions of law raised by this application have been answered adversely to applicant by this Court or the U. S. Supreme Court.
<PAGE>

                                                            EXHIBIT 10.509

                        DESCRIPTION OF CHIRON CORPORATION'S
               1999 EXECUTIVE OFFICERS VARIABLE COMPENSATION PROGRAM



Decisions on compensation (base salary and variable compensation) of Chiron
Corporation's ("Chiron" or the "Company") executive officers are made by the
five-member Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors.

For 1999, the Compensation Committee continued the Company's approach that
base salaries for executive officers should be measured by reference to the
median (50th percentile) of salaries for benchmark positions in comparator
companies. Further, the Compensation Committee provided that a significant
portion of total cash compensation (salary plus variable compensation) in the
form of annual variable cash compensation potential should be "at risk,"
dependent upon individual, business unit and overall Company performance.
Variable cash compensation for executive officers overall was targeted to
yield total cash compensation at the 50% percentile, but with the opportunity
to significantly exceed the 50% percentile of total cash compensation as
shown by comparative data, in the case of outstanding Company, business unit,
and individual performance.

The Compensation Committee based its decisions regarding variable
compensation for executive officers upon its evaluation of performance
against pre-established performance metrics developed at the Company,
business unit and functional or corporate unit level.

Variable compensation for the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer is based
on the performance of the Company as measured against the pre-established
Company metrics composed of financial objectives and business innovation
milestones.

Executive officers responsible for business units or major functional or
corporate units are eligible for variable compensation based on the
pre-established Company metrics and on the achievement of their respective
business, functional, or corporate unit metrics.
EXHIBIT
18
 
 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 Annual Report of Utah Medical Products, Inc. (the “Company”)
on Form 10-K /A for the fiscal year ending December
31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the “Report”), I, Paul O. Richins, Principal 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, to the best of my knowledge
and belief:
 
 (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.
 
 
 
 /s/ Paul O.
Richins
 Paul O.
Richins
 Principal
Financial Officer
 January
13, 2010
 
 
 A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
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.
MEMORANDUM 

DATE: November 21, 2014

TO: Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

FROM: Region 7, EPA

SUBJECT: June 25, 2014, Session at 4-State Environmental Director Meeting on Proposed

Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants

SUMMARY

A special session was held between EPA and the attendees listed below on June 25, 

2014, as part of the semi-annual 4-State Environmental Directors meeting, to discuss the 

proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The majority of the discussion centered 

on how goals were established for the states in Region 7: Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. 

The Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES

EPA Region 7:

Rebecca Weber

Josh Tapp

Mark A. Smith

Ward Burns

Iowa Department of Natural Resources

Chuck Gipp

Bill Ehm

Catharine Fitzsimmons

Kansas Department of Health and 

Environment

John Mitchell

Leo Henning

Rick Brunetti

Missouri Department of Natural Resources 

Sara Parker Pauley

Kyra Moore

Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality

Pat Rice

Tom Lamberson

Jay Ringenburg

Shelly Schneider
```

[114th Congress Public Law 166]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[[Page 130 STAT. 419]]

Public Law 114-166
114th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
  1103 USPS Building 1103 in Camp Pendleton, California, as the ``Camp 
 Pendleton Medal of Honor Post Office''. <<NOTE: June 13, 2016 -  [H.R. 
                                 136]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CAMP PENDLETON MEDAL OF HONOR POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1103 USPS Building 1103 in Camp Pendleton, California, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Camp Pendleton Medal of Honor Post 
Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Camp 
Pendleton Medal of Honor Post Office''.

    Approved June 13, 2016.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 136:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 162 (2016):
            Mar. 1, considered and passed House.
            May 26, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
#### In re ESTATE of Joe Shreve ANDERSON, Deceased. Wanda ANDERSON, the surviving spouse of Joe Shreve Anderson, Appellant, v. ELLIS FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BRADENTON, as Administrator C.T.A. of the Estate of Joe Shreve Anderson, Deceased, et al., Appellees.

No. 74-737.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 12, 1974.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Ausben Darel DOWD, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 45919.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 14, 1975.

Certiorari denied. 297 So.2d 147.

ADKINS, C. J., and ROBERTS, Mc-CAIN, DEKLE and OVERTON, JJ., concur.
#### § 12.2 [Reserved]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                              35
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      786
<ALLOWANCES>                                        76
<INVENTORY>                                        143
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   964
<PP&E>                                             123
<DEPRECIATION>                                      17
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,004
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,905
<BONDS>                                             68
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           469
<OTHER-SE>                                        (438)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,004
<SALES>                                            953
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,536
<CGS>                                              644
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      354
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,831
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  12
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,354)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,354)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   (347)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,701)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.17)
        

</TABLE>