alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 21
                                  SUBSIDIARIES
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                      State or Other
                                                            Percentage                  Jurisdiction
Subsidiaries (1)                                               Owned                of Incorporation
----------------                                            ----------              ------------------
<S>                                                             <C>                        <C>
Ameriana Bank and Trust, SB (2)                                100%                      United States

Ameriana Insurance Agency, Inc. (3)                            100%                      Indiana

Ameriana Financial Services, Inc. (3)                          100%                      Indiana

Ameriana Investment Management, Inc (3)                        100%                      Delaware

Family Financial Life Insurance Company (4)                     14%                      Louisiana

Indiana Title Insurance Company, LLC (5)                        21%                      Indiana

Midwest Corporate Tax Credit Fund                                6%                      Indiana
</TABLE>

------------------
(1)      Operations of the Company's wholly-owned direct subsidiaries, Ameriana
         Bank and Trust, SB and Ameriana Bank and Trust, SB's wholly-owned
         subsidiaries, Ameriana Insurance Agency, Inc, Ameriana Financial
         Services, Inc. and Deer Park Service Corporation, are included in the
         Company's consolidated financial statements included in the Annual
         Report on Form 10-K.
(2)      First-tier subsidiary of the Company.
(3)      Second-tier subsidiary of the Company 100% owned by Ameriana Bank and
         Trust, SB, a first-tier subsidiary of the Company.
(4)      Third-tier subsidiary of the Company 1/7th owned through stock
         investment and less than 1/7th owned through partnership
         interests of Ameriana Financial Services, Inc., a second-tier
         subsidiary of the Company 100% owned by Ameriana Bank and
         Trust, SB, a first-tier subsidiary of the Company.
(5)      Third-tier subsidiary of the Company owned through investment of
         Ameriana Financial Services, Inc. a second-tier subsidiary of the
         Company 100% owned by Ameriana Bank and Trust, SB, a first-tier
         subsidiary of the Company.
#### Patrick Michael AMES, Appellant, v. STATE of Alaska, Appellee.

No. 2145.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

June 26, 1975.

*1117ORDER ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Appellant has moved for rehearing on the basis that the court has a misconception of the facts of the case and that the transcript demonstrates that appellant in fact followed the proper procedure in attempting to impeach the witness with a prior inconsistent statement. After reviewing the record we grant limited rehearing to modify the opinion.

It is ordered that page 6 of the opinion dated April 3, 1975 is modified to read as follows:

> The Alaska rule2 provides that a witness may be impeached by prior inconsistent statements provided the statements are shown to the witness before any questions are asked concerning them.3 The superior court erred in prohibiting the defense attorney from showing the statement to the witness and questioning her in regard to the statement. However, even assuming the previous statement to be in conflict with the answer given at trial,4' the subject matter and the extent of conflict are of such a trivial nature as to be without effect on appellant’s substantive rights. The court’s action was therefore harmless error.

Footnotes 2 (page 5), 4 and 5 (page 6) are deleted, and footnote 3 is renumbered footnote 2. Footnotes 6, 7, 8 and 9 (on pages 7-9) are renumbered 5, 6, 7 and 8 respectively. New footnotes 3 and 4 are added as follows:

3. *See*McMaster v. State, 512 P.2d 879, 884-86 (Alaska 1973) (Connor, J. dissenting) ; McCormick’s Law of Evidence § 37, at 72 (2d ed. E. Cleary 1972). Prior inconsistent statements may be admitted on this basis even though they deal with collateral matters. *Id.*§ 36 at 70-71; 3A J. Wigmore, Evidence, § 1023 at 1018-20 (Chadbourn rev. 1970). Since inconsistent statements may be used as substantive evidence, the testimony with which the previous statement is inconsistent should be material. 2 C. Torcia, Wharton’s Criminal Evidence § 468 at 410-12 (13th ed. 1972). *See*Beavers v. State, 492 P.2d 88, 94 (Alaska 1971).

4. At the preliminary hearing the witness stated:

> The floor is very, very hard and you can hear anybody. You know, even bare feet, you can hear them walking.

At the trial the witness answered the question of whether she could hear anyone walking in their bare feet as follows :

> If they’re pretty heavy, I mean — ’cause sometimes my brother will walk around in bare feet and you can’t hear him.
| 1. | I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Nexen Inc.; and |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Date: December 15, 2010 |
|--------|-------------------------|

|   |   |                                                |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                |   |
|   |   | /s/ Kevin J. Reinhart                          |   |
|   |   | Kevin J. Reinhart                                   |   |
|   |   | Executive Vice Presidentand Chief Financial Officer |   |
|   |   |                                                |   |

----
January 25, 2002

23936

#### State v. Renaud

Affirmed
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                            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 DUSA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, D. Geoffrey Shulman,
Chief Executive Officer 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/ D. Geoffrey Shulman
                                               ------------------------
                                               D. Geoffrey Shulman


Date:    November 12, 2002
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 350 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 350

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          July 9, 2015.
    Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 6) to accelerate the discovery, development, and delivery of 21st 
century cures, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
dispensed with. All points of order against consideration of the bill are 
waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and amendments specified in 
this resolution and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by 
the chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 
After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-
minute rule. In lieu of the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended 
by the Committee on Energy and Commerce now printed in the bill, an amendment in 
the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of Rules Committee Print 114-
22 shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the 
Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the 
purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered 
as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill, as amended, are 
waived. No further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except 
those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
resolution. Each such further amendment may be offered only in the order printed 
in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall 
be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report 
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the 
question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order 
against such further amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration 
of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill, as 
amended, to the House with such further amendments as may have been adopted. The 
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on 
any further amendment thereto, to final passage without intervening motion 
except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Credit Card Information Sheet for 

Payment of USDA APHIS Endorsement Fee(s) 

All information is required. Please print clearly.

Cardholder Name (as it appears on your card): 

_________________________________________________________________

Billing Address

Street: _________________________________________________

City: _________________________________________________ 

State: ____________________ 

Zip Code: ____________________

Card Number: __________________________________________________

Expiration Date: _______/_______

Security Code: _______________

Remember to include the Credit Card Sheet when you overnight

ship your health certificate to the USDA Endorsement Office for

endorsement.

After successful payment is processed, the credit card 

information sheet will be destroyed.
Order No. 97-39

18530

April 25, 1997

#### State v. Robertson

Affirmed
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Research Facility Annual Usage

Summary Report

Last Modified: 

Print

Each USDA-registered research facility and Federal research facility is required by

the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) to submit an Annual Report (APHIS Form 7023) that

documents its use of animals for research, testing, teaching, experimentation,

and/or surgery.

USDA-APHIS Animal Care receives copy of each research facility’s annual report on

or before December 1.  Animal Care reviews the data to ensure the calculated totals

are consistent with the number of reported animals in each pain/distress category. 

Reports with inconsistent data are returned to the research facility for correction. 

The completeness and accuracy of the non-Federal research facility annual reports

might be validated during USDA animal welfare compliance inspections.  However,

research facilities sometimes include additional data on their annual reports that is

not required under the Animal Welfare Act, such as data about rats of the genus

rattus, mice of the genus mus, and birds bred for use in research, animals used in

excluded field studies, animals used in clinical trials in the context of a veterinary

client relationship, and reptiles, fish, or other animals that are not covered by the

AWA.  The data in the summary reports represent the number of animals USDAregistered research facilities and Federal research facilities reported as being used

or held for research, testing, teaching, experimentation, and/or surgery. The
summary reports are based on the Annual Report column designations:

Column B (animals held by a facility but not used in any research that year)

Column C (animals used in research; no pain involved; no pain drugs

administered)

Column D (animals used in research; pain involved; pain drugs administered)

Column E (animals used in research; pain involved; no pain drugs administered)

Column F (total number of animals used in research; Column C + Column D +

Column E) 

Research Facility Annual Usage Summary Report

(FY2019-FY2021)

Animal Care provides Annual Usage Summaries for the previous three fiscal years. This report

does not reflect any changes or amendments made to the report once the reporting season

has been finalized.

Download Research Facility Annual Usage Summary Report (FY2019-FY2021)

More Information

Animal Welfare Act and Regulations (Blue Book) 

Animal Welfare Inspection Guide 

Freedom of Information Act Requests 

File an Animal Welfare Complaint 

Apply for a License or Registration 

Submit Research Facility Annual Reports 

Archived Summary Annual Reports 

Public Search Tool
# C_2019357EN.01003302.xml

| 21.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 357/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 357/33

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 September 2019 — C&A v EUIPO (#BESTDEAL)

(Case T-753/18) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU figurative mark #BESTDEAL - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2019/C 357/41)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: C&A AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by P. Koch Moreno, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by V. Ruzek, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 26 October 2018 (Case R 1234/2018-2) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign #BESTDEAL as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders C&A AG to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders C&A AG to bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 18.2.2019.

---
Order No. 97-40

17900

April 25, 1997

#### State v. Trells

Affirmed
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-4457

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MARGARET SUSAN FAULK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-99-5-BO)

Submitted: January 18, 2001 Decided: January 30, 2001

Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rosemary Godwin, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Janice

McKenzie Cole, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant

United States Attorney, Thomas B. Murphy, Assistant United States

Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Margaret Susan Faulk appeals her convictions and sentence for

conspiracy to commit mail theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371

(1994) and receipt and possession of stolen mail and aiding and

abetting in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2 & 1708 (1994). Finding no

reversible error, we affirm.

On appeal, Faulk claims that she is entitled to a new trial

because the prosecutor made improper remarks during his rebuttal

closing argument. Because our review of the record reveals that

any such prosecutorial misconduct did not “so infect[] the trial

with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due

process,” we find that this claim is without merit. United States

v. Morsley, 64 F.3d 907, 913 (4th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted).

Accordingly, we affirm Faulk’s convictions and sentence. We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
### combustionsurvey

- Fw: Boiler MACT Rule

- Additional Information for Reconsideration

-----Forwarded by Brian Shrager/RTP/USEPA/US on 07/ 16/2011 03:33PM -----

To: Brian Shrager/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Jim Eddinger/RTP /USEPA/US@EPA From: "Buff, Dave" <DBuff@GOLDER.com> Date: 07/15/2011 06:02PM Subject: Boiler MACT Rule- Additional Information f or Reconsideration (See attached file: FSI_MACT_Floor_Analysis_Report (Final 07-15-11).pdf) (See attached file: FSI Boiler MACT Additional Info rmation to EPA Ltr_7-15-11 (Final).pdf)

Mr. Shrager and Eddinger, per the Agency’s request in the Federal Register of May 18, 2011, please fin d attached additional information concerning the Hybr id Suspension Grate boiler subcategory, and accompa nying documents (first of two emails). I will also uploa d these to the docket. If you should have any ques tions, please call or email me. The sugar industry repres entatives would again like to meet with you and the Agency staff, in late July or August, regarding this infor mation and the status of the rulemaking. We will b e in contact in the near future regarding a meeting. Thanks ver y much.

David A. Buff, P.E., Q.E.P. | Principal Engineer | Golder Associates Inc. 6026 NW 1st Place, Gainesville, Florida, USA 32607 Tel: +1 (352) 336-5600 ext. 21145 Fax: +1 (352) 336-6603 | Cell: +1 352 514-5600 |

E: dbuff@golder.com | www.golder.com

Work Safe, Home Safe

This email transmission is confidential and may con tain proprietary information for the exclusive use of the intended recipient. Any use, distribution or copying of this transmission, other than by the int ended recipient, is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the send er and delete all copies. Electronic media is suscepti ble to unauthorized modification, deterioration, an d incompatibility. Accordingly, the electronic media version of any work product may not be relied upon.

Please consider the environment before printing thi s email.



### = From: Brian Shrager <Shrager.Brian@epamail.epa.gov>
To: <combustionsurvey@erg.com>
Date: 7/16/2011 3:34 PM Subject: Fw: Boiler MACT Rule

- Additional Information for Reconsideration
Attachments: FSI_MACT_Floor_Analysis_Report (Final 07-15-11).pdf; FSI Boiler MACT

Additional Information to EPA Ltr_7

- 15

- 11 (Final).pdf Page 1 of 1

8/2/2011 file://C:\Documents and Settings\GGibson\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpw ise\4E21AF8DDO

...
Supplemental Document for the Temporary Exportation of Horses from the 

United States to a Contagious Equine Metritis Affected Country 

(Eligible for Three Day Quarantine) 

I. Identification of Animal

II. Country Visited: _______________________

III. Address of Premises of Temporary Residence : _______________________________

IV. Dates of Residence(mm/dd/yyyy): _______________________

V. Animal Health Attestations

I, the undersigned, certify that the horse described above meets the following requirements:

a. The horse has been residing in the country specified above for_______ (number) days.

b. The horse described was inspected on the premises listed above on _________(mm/dd/yyyy)

and found to be free of contagious diseases and, insofar as can be determined, not exposed to

communicable or contagious diseases immediately preceding exportation, during the

indicated period of residency;

c. The horse has not been vaccinated with a live, attenuated or inactivated vaccine during the

period of residency(if less than 14 days), or within 14 days preceding exportation

d. That, insofar as I can determine, African horse sickness, dourine, glanders, surra, epizootic

lymphangitis, ulcerative lymphangitis, equine piroplasmosis, equine infectious anemia (EIA),

contagious equine metritis (CEM), vesicular stomatitis, or Venezuelan equine

encephalomyelitis has not occurred on the residing premises during the period of residency,

nor have these diseases occurred on any adjoining premises during the same period of time;

e. The horse was examined and found to be free of ectroparasites.

Additional attestations for mares and stallions temporarily exported from the U.S. to a CEM 

affected country: 

f. Insofar as I can determine, since residing in________( temporary country of residence) , the

horse:

• has been held separate and apart from all other horses except for the time it was actually

participating in an event or was being exercised by its trainer;

• has not been on any premises where horses were held or used for breeding purposes;

• has not been bred nor had other sexual contact or genital examination while residing in the

above country;

• has been transported only in cleaned and disinfected vehicles and was not accompanied by

any other horse of a different health status.

Examining Veterinarian

Clinic/FEI stamp Printed Name Signature Date

Name Breed Sex Age Color Microchip

An original wet ink signature is required by the Authorizing Veterinarian.