alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       1,927,689
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             2,846,249
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 16,105,774
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                       1,089,810
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                         1,083,563
<LOANS>                                     45,574,299
<ALLOWANCE>                                    608,290
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              71,665,445
<DEPOSITS>                                  63,166,516
<SHORT-TERM>                                   932,713
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            676,261
<LONG-TERM>                                  3,265,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,297
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,619,658
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              71,665,445
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              2,970,033
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              835,831
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               140,389
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             3,946,253
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,995,831
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,221,915
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,724,338
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  155,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               2,903
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,501,669
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                227,415
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     139,269
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   139,269
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    8.48
<LOANS-NON>                                     54,479
<LOANS-PAST>                                   211,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               457,432
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    9,591
<RECOVERIES>                                     5,449
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              608,290
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           608,290
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

906 CERTIFICATION

The undersigned certify pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 1350 as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

(1)    
          The accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended February 28,
          2005, 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 accompanying Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
          Company.

|Date:  April 14, 2005 | /s/ David H. Roche                                                                                                                 
|--------------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                      |                                                                                                                                    
|                      | President and
                                                                               Chief Executive Officer               
|                      | /s/ Steven M. Caspers                                                                                                              
|                      |                                                                                                                                    
|                      | Executive Vice President and
                                                                               Chief Financial Officer
#### Phillip Reeves SIMS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 43736.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 19, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 7, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 274 So.2d 576.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ERVIN, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### Sonya GOLDEN, Appellant, v. Gary GOLDEN, Appellee.

No. 77-2081.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 7, 1978.

Rehearing Denied April 21, 1978.

Joseph Teichman, Hollywood, for appellant.

Fields & Garfield, Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, NATHAN and HUB-BART, JJ.

PEARSON, Judge.

This interlocutory appeal is by the former wife in a dissolution of marriage proceeding. She appeals a post-judgment order denying her motion for enforcement of the final judgment of dissolution by requiring the former husband to pay tuition expenses of a minor child. The trial judge dismissed the motion by an order which stated the grounds to be: . that this court *1275lacks jurisdiction to consider the Petition for Tuition Expenses of the Respondent, Sonya Golden, and the petition is hereby dismissed.”

The determinative question presented on this appeal is whether the trial court correctly held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the petition. The following facts of the case are considered salient to this holding: A final judgment of dissolution of marriage was entered on June 21, 1973. Included in the final judgment was a provision on the support and education of the minor son:

> “2. The parties dictated a stipulation agreement into the record during the trial of this cause which was held in Dade County, Florida, on June 21st, 1973. That the Stipulation was approved by the Court and by reference, the same is fully incorporated in this Final Judgment. The Court will set out the salient features of the parties’ agreement, which is now the Order of the Court, viz-a-viz: ******

> “(E-l) The Petitioner will provide, if financially able, his son, Douglas, with the funds necessary to attend college for four years (if Douglas so desires). Tuition, room, board and all necessary and reasonable expenses shall be borne by the Petitioner for this purpose.”

It is apparent that a trial court has jurisdiction to enforce a formal agreement between the parties with respect to the maintenance of children when that agreement is made a part of the final judgment. See *Zakoor v. Zakoor,*240 So.2d 193 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970).

Appellee husband proposes that jurisdiction does not rest because the petition was improperly drawn in that it was necessary for appellant, as a petitioner for tuition expenses for her son, to allege that appellee was financially able to provide said tuition expenses. Owca *v. Zemzicki,*137 So.2d 876 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962); and Fla.R. Civ.P. 1.190(b). It is true that the obligation for support and tuition expenses is contingent upon a finding by the court that appellee is financially capable. But that determination can only be made after the taking of evidence. The appellee must be presumed capable until a change of circumstances is shown.

We conclude that appellee’s objections are premature and are such as could be made after the presentation of evidence. The court has jurisdiction to proceed to hear the petition, and the petition must be granted or denied according to the evidence presented.

Reversed and remanded with directions.
#### Marian E. BRYSON, Appellant, v. Fred L. BRYSON, Appellee.

No. 72-463.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 28, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Wertetety 22 vninccrpernted See eee ©=OSs SIXTEENTH CENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES: 1940
See Seer eras POPULATION SCHEDULE

om ee
Location | HOUSEBOLD DaTa DESCRIPTION EnvcaTi0N PLACE OF BIRTH = L. PERSONS 14 YEARS OLD ASD OVER—&MPLOTMENT STATUS

7 ‘Name of onch persen whose usual place
: * | of residence an Apri 1, 1040, was in
i!

a] lisse Lisle =

|
fs
gthe
Fe

fF
i

«| be Male (i, Pema (F)

i

E
i
i

. (Ais bousebold.
-

rf
4
ake we exvo
‘Age ob tase hershey
‘aw Mah 1 vet Ye

ta | PODE (Leeve bteax)

Ee re i
| Alten’ ae

=
a
bs]

~— 3} Sigtant grade of ches! oom;

i =
pos:

fe

srY

=

aa

|

SaSehyT
rd
&

SE

¥
=

Se

ravee|
2390 70|
O Ke)
a
| 5/5 pea

4 |

a és

Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau. = 3 7p" 7idk
C7

ewe TS ST SayhLS TST

Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here.

nhs oF

az

SUPPLEMENT?
OT UESTE oe i tron eS LL aGks i PERSONS 14 YEARS OLD AND OVER

MOTHER TONGUE 08 RaTtrE| :

LANGUAGE) | Ae SEUAL OCOTPATION, CRDUITET, AND CLAS OF WORKER
Bi bora in the Pied Mae. gine Sauce, Torritary. ot possess

forwsgu bre five oassiry fe aur ai sol ce hea

Sak exporionse, easter“ Borne” be Cal 4 aint lower Cote 8 eon

5 ‘Soa! lawn ot
§ *
i Teme!
USUAL OCOUPATION tavas rsnceret a
worker

ae thie wma been martin
ive than patel (Tones Be

5 = ’
SN ee
tah pene

law th res —___ HC CRE
(Rh oo cated yee
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida 

Opinion filed April 28, 2021.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D19-2272

Lower Tribunal No. 18-35602

________________

Gregorian International, Inc., et al.,

Appellants,

vs.

Alejandro Enrique Delfino Thormahlen, etc.,

Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William 

Thomas, Judge.

Damian & Valori, LLP, and Melissa Damian Visconti, and Melanie E. 

Damian, for appellants.

Holland & Knight LLP, Christopher N. Bellows, Anna Marie Gamez, J. 

Raul Cosio and Rebecca M. Plasencia, for appellee.

Before EMAS, C.J., and LINDSEY, and BOKOR, JJ. 

PER CURIAM.
2

Celestino Martinez, a Venezuelan citizen who resides in Broward 

County, Florida, appeals the dismissal of his complaint against Alejandro 

Enrique Delfino Thormahlen on the basis of forum non conveniens. The 

lower court granted the motion, in favor of conducting the litigation in 

Venezuela, without holding an evidentiary hearing.1

The standard of review on dismissal of a complaint on the basis of 

forum non conveniens is abuse of discretion. See Fla. R. Civ. P 1.061(a); 

Abeid-Saba v. Carnival Corp., 184 So. 3d 593, 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). “The 

burden of proof of each element in the forum non conveniens analysis is on 

the [d]efendants.” Publicidad Vepaco, C.A. v. Mezerhane, 176 So. 3d 273, 

277 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) (citing Telemundo Network Grp., LLC v. Azteca Int’l 

Corp., 957 So. 2d 705, 709 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)). “The first of the four 

[Kinney] factors is the availability of an adequate alternative forum. As 

explained in Cortez, ‘[t]his factor encompasses two separate considerations: 

availability and adequacy.’” Id. at 276 (quoting Cortez v. Palace Resorts, 

1 Gregorian International, Inc., was a named plaintiff only on Count I 

(Declaratory Judgment). Before briefs were filed and oral argument was 

held, the parties resolved Count I by agreeing to a stipulated final judgment 

as to that count only. Consequently, Gregorian is not a party to the appeal,

and the only remaining counts in the amended complaint are Count II 

(Tortious Interference with Advantageous Business Relationships) and 

Count III (Defamation Per Se). 
3

Inc., 123 So. 3d 1085, 1091 (Fla. 2013)); see also Kinney Sys. v. Cont’l Ins. 

Co., 674 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 1996).

Because the record demonstrates disputed issues of fact as to the 

“adequacy” of the Venezuelan forum, we reverse and remand for the lower 

court to conduct an evidentiary hearing and make factual findings regarding 

this factor so that this Court may have a sufficient record from which to 

conduct its review.

Reversed and remanded.
#### Janice GALLIEN v. COMMERCIAL UNION INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 61530.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 17, 1978.

In re: Janice Gallien, applying for certio-rari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of Calcasieu. 353 So.2d 1127.

Writ denied.

DIXON & TATE, JJ., vote to grant the writ.
EX-10.5




 Exhibit 10.5 

ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT 

THIS ASSUMPTION AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) is entered into and effective as of September 30, 2022, by and between
Noble Corporation plc, a public limited company formed under the laws of England and Wales with registered number 12958050 (f/k/a Noble Finco Limited) (the “Company”), and Noble Corporation, a Cayman Islands exempted company
(“Noble Predecessor”). 
 WHEREAS, on November 10, 2021, the Company, Noble Predecessor and The Drilling Company of
1972 A/S entered into a Business Combination Agreement (the “Business Combination Agreement”) pursuant to which, among other things, Noble Predecessor will merge with and into a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company (the
“Merger”); 
 WHEREAS, Noble Predecessor is a party to (i) the Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of
February 5, 2021, and (ii) the Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of April 15, 2021 (each agreement described in clauses (i)-(ii), a “Registration Rights Agreement”); 

WHEREAS, each Registration Rights Agreement provides that Noble Predecessor shall cause any successor or assign (whether by merger,
consolidation, sale of the assets or otherwise) to assume Noble Predecessor’s obligations under such agreement; and 
 WHEREAS, in
connection with the consummation of the Merger, the Company desires to assume Noble Predecessor’s obligations under each Registration Rights Agreement; 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and mutual agreements set forth in the Business Combination Agreement, the parties hereto
hereby agree as follows: 
  

	1.	 Assumption of Registration Rights Agreements. Effective and contingent upon the effectiveness of the
Merger, the Company hereby assumes all of Noble Predecessor’s duties and obligations under each Registration Rights Agreement. 


  

	2.	 No Effect on Obligations. The Parties hereby ratify and confirm that the terms and provisions of each
Registration Rights Agreement, as modified by this Agreement, shall remain in full force and effect following the execution of this Agreement for all purposes. 



* * * * * 











 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of
the day and year first above written. 
  

			
	COMPANY
	
	NOBLE CORPORATION PLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Richard B. Barker

	Name:	 	 Richard B. Barker

	Its:	 	Chief Financial Officer
	
	NOBLE PREDECESSOR
	
	NOBLE CORPORATION
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Richard B. Barker

	Name:	 	Richard B. Barker
	Its:	 	Chief Financial Officer
# COMPANY SANITIZED

UNOFFICIAL TRANSLATION

Analysis Report

NMC cathode material: Batch ref .: NMC

- 111

- 10

- 101024

- F, 25.08.2011

Prep .: 1g solid susp in 100 ml of deionized H 2 O .; 10min. magnetic stirrer

Hydro G: Pu = 2500Upm, Rü = 500 rpm; E = 50ml Susp. in 830ml of deionized H 2 O

Ed .: G. Reuscher; Data Sheet No .: 952.2

Sample Material: Fraunhofer Dispersion Model: Hydro 2000G (A)

Obscuration: 12.66%

Particle RI: 0.000 Absorption: 0 Analysis Model: Universal Blue Light Attenuation: 8.67%

Dispersion Fluid: Water Measuring Range: 0.020 to 20000.0... um Fit (weighted): 0.426%

Fit (weighted): 0.429%

Fluid RI: 1.330 Emulation: Off

Concentration: 0.0185 %Vol Mean Volume D[4,3]: 12.391 um Specific Surface Area: 0.622 m 2 /g

Width: 1.111 Uniformity: 0.349 D[3, 2]: 9.646 um

Distribution Type: Volume

Particle Size Distribution

Particle Size (μm)

---- Batch ref .: NMC

- 111

- 10

- 101024

- F, Bottling Date: 25.08.2011, Wednesday, 8. February 2012 10:22:07

Size > Passage (%) Size > Passage (%) Size > Passage (%) Size > Passage (%) Size > Passage (%) Size > Passage (%)This document is directed to USEPA pursuant the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This document is the property of the sponsor and may be used only for that purpose intended by the sponsor and as authorized underapplicable law. Every other or additional use, exploitation, reproduction, publication or submission to other parties requires the written permission of the sponsor, except as otherwise required by applicable law (e.g., TSCA ).The use of these studies/documents for regulatory, registration or other commercial purposes [including but not limited to Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemical Substances (REACH))] by (i) privateparties, or by (ii) authorities outside the US Government, without the express written permission of the sponsor is unauthorized and strictly prohibited. 

## EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0922
### TD TVw <W of (W^App*> C°URTOFCR/^lopp. 

### A^^TfrY^Wu SEP 16 205
Da*/ \ W^aUb (IMC, 

### Pifc&5& fivd 6*X\05«1 fiyfitipj 9«&fc»*tf3 ftt> -56lW4i»»> ft^DfcfcWtoPArtf iV«fc "fetfvi Qtfhrfc^(W4 of bW^^Wty Tfe^5'ftr (46P<if»W6- Jud^s Mark (<Mbtftl6> ferns 7734$FOSiU >^T£K^ 413&W7 A*a T<r^ fell JuAxtwd £/At$4 Vicftn (pAS k^<5S*m^ /w&r/y^f,'^ £s<fi*}%&\ £ifc/w&*A< of Oab, Pl&^s /®Jk 6o»lcUfeg

,t TKfe first- tifae uJt&s \&<tfiM> Ltywfs 4-m\m*** **> Unshed(Af&rm)**& fc y\ ft 

### ~$6$p*i'A^ P*fo»** - -fi-o^w J Jorfu'cWwv^ P«r&o$ o^ucW 1 \i^ P^>o7 -£ou f-fof*6V«tee' tka tea; Pwi^JL rwfttl^J ^<$aWw*Jfe ftIs*, Ss*&*>«/ M^ <fk»>&\IW* ^6-
#### Wayne MACK, Appellant, v. ROCKING K CATTLE CO., Appellee.

No. 73-1359.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 19, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 8, 1974.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Stephen R. Booher, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
oe |
CENSUS OF THE UNITED STATES.

Somos No. 1POPULATION.

Name of I

Sapereiers Disrit No
Veer an ean

”TM srs ome Cpe eect

Enumerated by me on the

pana TT

‘sop
cross
mement

Sarena

ATIVE

“mawesminoeetiees [i

Wad

Ay

Me

hones
iF pace 889% 5

ed (9146 53) e2:
LES NTPS

ie Tndoials

Poland Say hoe.. 2]

TrnseAshisandn 3

Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration,

not the U.S. Census Bureau.

1Se) Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here.
A ste lapral ream Wana © boc © Hin dQunnntn [21 nl
(EU an Ula lhgie
f Zz (asi Lana Ufa pe Ze. Tego
a Dn Galea ET (8 4 Bhan (hanar = a
Ye py EIA, Bladen Lae a

ial

rm eat iin fi
ato
Pree re
ls lm = aaa
fee Pen iL
i

&

dee la ms AeA
t 2 is
g eth Pera]
eee Dae lee MSS Hn Bh 0.|6
4s: L
Treen = Frama
y ike ESTES
— 1 a PA M6835 tow (NT 2]
oo Bead
| ——l rat
: ay rarer AL
=< an he | fn Oe a
uid
is My, a7 St}
a — Flding VEr2Sienl9 Lalo
- ANT 4 |
siti ESTE Piha A
ma | 2
Honorable Gene R. Danish Opinion No. H-1008 

Chairman 

Board of Polygraph Examiners Re: Authority of Board of 

Suite 218 

Executive Office Terrace 

111 West Anderson Lane 

Austin, Texas 78752 

Dear Mr. Danish: 

Polygraph Examiners to pay 

a 1975-76 travel claim when 

all 1975-76 funds have been 

spent. 

You inquire whether the Board of Polygraph Examiners 

has authority to reimburse one of its members for certain 

travel expenses incurred during the fiscal year ending 

August 31, 1976. No claim for these expenses was submitted 

prior to September 1, 1976. Since the Board had, at that 

time, no funds remaining from the fiscal year 1975-76, you 

ask whether the claims may be paid from the 1976-77 fiscal 

year's budget. 

The Board of Polygraph Examiners is responsible for administration of the Polygraph Examiners Act. V.T.C.S. art. 

4413(29cc), 9 5(a). Authorization to expend funds for the 

Board's ,work is provided-in section 6(c) as follows: 

All fees collected under the provisions of 

this Act shall be paid to the Treasurer of 

the State of Texas. Funds necessary for the 

enforcement of this Act and the administration of its provisions shall be appropriated 

by the Legislature, but the funds so appropriated for a biennium shall not;exceed the 

total amount of the fees which it is anticipated will be collected hereunder during such 

biennium. 

Travel allowances for Board members are subject to the General 

Appropriations Act. V.T.C.S. art. 4413(29cc), 5 5(b). 

P. 4169 
Honorable Gene R. Danish - page 2 (B-1008) 

The 1975 General Appropriations Act appropriated funds 

to the Board for each of the years ending August 31, 1976 

and August 31, 1977 respectively. Acts 1975, 64th Leg., 

ch. 743, art. IV, at 2758. See Fulmore v. Lane, 140 S.W. 

405, 410 (Tex. 1911). This office has said in prior opinions that funds provided for one fiscal year are intended 

to be available only for expenditures necessary for the agency 

to operate during that year. 

(1952); O-2380 (1940). 

Attorney General Opinions V-1397 

This principle has been applied to expenditures for services, Attorney General Opinion O-2815 (1940), 

and consumable supplies, Attorney General Opinions O-6883 (1945); 

O-2380 (1940). An exception has been made for capital expenditures, since they go to purchase items that will be used 

long after the year of acquisition. Attorney General Opinions 

C-625 (1966); V-1397 (1952). We find no authority for excepting 

the travel expenses in this case from the general rule. 

The Board may not pay the travel claims out of its 1976-77 

appropriation. See Pickle v. Finley, 44 S.W. 480 (Tex. 1898). - 

SUMMARY 

The Board of Polygraph Examiners may not 

use funds appropriated for the fiscal year 

1976-77 to reimburse a Board member for 

travel expenses incurred during the 1975-76 

fiscal year. 

VeJy truly yours, 

ttorney General of Texas 

APPROVED: 

Opinion Committee 

p. 4170