alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Washington, DC 20549







FORM 8-K





CURRENT REPORT


PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE


SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934







DATE OF REPORT (Date of earliest event reported): April 28, 2010





Commission File Number 0-17071







FIRST MERCHANTS CORPORATION


(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)








INDIANA
35-1544218(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation)
(IRS Employer Identification No.)





200 East Jackson Street


P.O. Box 792


Muncie, IN 47305-2814


(Address of principal executive offices, including zip code)





(765) 747-1500


(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)





Not Applicable


(Former name or former address, if changed since last report)





Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:







o Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)




o Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)




o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))




o Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))















ITEM 2.02 RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND FINANCIAL CONDITION.





On April 28, 2010 First Merchants Corporation issued a press release to report its financial results for the first quarter ended March 31, 2010. A copy of the press release is furnished as Exhibit 99.1 to this Current Report on Form 8-K.





The information in this Current Report on Form 8-K,  including  Exhibit No. 99.1  hereto,  shall not be deemed  "filed"  for  purposes  of Section 18 of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,  or otherwise subject to liability of  that  section.   The  information  in  this  Current  Report  shall  not  be incorporated  by  reference  into any filing or other  document  pursuant to the Securities  Act of 1933,  as amended,  except as shall be expressly set forth by specific reference in such filing or document.





ITEM 9.01 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND EXHIBITS.





(a)        Not applicable.





(b)        Not applicable.





(c)        Exhibits.





Exhibit 99.1      Press Release, dated April 28, 2010, issued by First Merchants Corporation








SIGNATURES





Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.





First Merchants Corporation


(Registrant)





By: /s/ Mark K. Hardwick


Mark K. Hardwick


Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


(Principal Financial and Principal Accounting Officer)








Dated: April 28, 2010








EXHIBIT INDEX





Exhibit No.





99.1
Description





Press Release, dated April 28, 2010, issued by First Merchants Corporation
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion filed October 14, 2014

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 13

- 00692

- CR

SAUNDREA ANNETTE JAC KSON , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 263rd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1340533

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant appeals her conviction for aggravated robbery

. 1 Appellant’s appointed counsel filed a brief in which he concludes the appeal is wholly

1 The record reflects that appellant pleaded guilty without an agreed recommendation as to sentencing. The certification of the right to appeal incorrectly states, “the defendant has waived the right of appeal.” Although negotiated waivers of the right to appeal are valid, non

negotiated waivers of the right to appeal are valid only if the defendant waived the right of appeal, knowing with certainty the punishment that w ould be assessed. See Monreal v. State , 99 S.W.3d 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003). Because there is no plea bargain in this case, and no2

frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State , 573 S.W .2d 807 , 811

– 13 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978).
A copy of counsel’s bri ef was delivered to appellant. Appellant was advised of the right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se response. See Stafford
v. State , 813 S.W.2d 503, 512 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). At appellant’s request, the record was provided to h er . On May 30, 2014 , appellant filed a pro se response to
counsel’s brief. We have carefully reviewed the record, counsel’s brief, and appellant’s response, and agree the appeal is wholly frivolous and wi thout merit. Further, we find no reversible error in the record. A discussion of the brief would add nothing to the jurisprudence of the state. We are not to address the merits of each claim
raised in an Anders brief or a pro se response when we have deter mined there are no arguable grounds for review. See Bledsoe v. State , 178 S.W.3d 824, 827

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Boyce, Jamison, and Donovan. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2( b).

evidence of a waiver made after sentencing, any waiver could not have been made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently gi ven that the defendant had no way of knowing with certainty the punishment that would be assessed. See Blanco v. State , 18 S.W.3d 218, 219 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). Thus, there is no valid waiver of the right to appeal.
808 

OFFICE OF THE Al-I’ORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

iioaorabfe X3. R. Wright 

Snperlntenaent , 

Tesas School for 

Austin, Tesa8 

Dear I&-. Wightr 

subjoot mattar, as fo 

on upon the above 

462, J-at% OS the 47th Le,gislsture, 

nl Lam oi TCxas, 1941, page Ore, 

•~l!onthcrs; bnMng instm%tOr, 

1' 

or aimntbj instructor of coanotolo 

I 

tlgl3t3 

c. r 

2% cos x 

cii mnth; other Ins mctore 

148&-J per month; roontioml1 

rrp;rioultura teacher not to exaefd $175.00 

per 3iiont.h fnolurling Ptifmal Grant on 12 

sdmths basksI prmidcd t.hreQ teachers msy 

be p&l not %XOCoc'jse: $lbb,Oo POP ~On~'----$8~,485.00 
809 

honorable 2. R. Wright - page 2 

l under tho aboro two p r wlsio ns of tho law, 

onn we logally pay our 

than $loco.co mnu3lly? t 

rinting instructor more 

Orcumrilp, an appropriation act may not ropoal, 

as10nd or rm ahatsoovor a Sonora1 law. But that prina&- 

pie has no application to your inquiry. house Dill no. 

291 of the 47th Legtslature, liegxlar Session, (Oenoral and 

Specfal Lass of Texas 1941, p.. 813) prwldea: 

*Ihe salaries of all State officers and 

all State employees, excbpt those Conetitutional State offlwra ahoeo Sal&es are speciflcal17 pired by the Constitution and esccpt the salaries of the District Judges and other couponsot&on of District Judges shall bon for the period 

boginaing Soptembor lr 1941, and endInS August 

31, 1943, In such sum or amounts aa nay be prodded for by the Legislature in the general approprilztioo bills. It Is spocificnlly doolared 

to bo ono.ot the Intents hereof that the togislature shall also flx the fusount of supplemental 

salarioe horsaitor, out of Court foes and rep 

ooipts, to be paid to the cloa'lcs snd other ouiployeos of the Courts of Civil A pools, the Suprome Court, and the Court of Cr fsilnal Appeals.* 

SootIon 3 of the Act oxpreesly reponla all laws 

end parts of lake fixing the salaries of all state officers 

ad employees insofar as they arc in couf'lict. The effeot 

of house Dill So, 291, thorefore, wae to suspend Artfole 

3205 for the 1iPo of tho Act -- that is, from Soptcmber 1, 

X941, to Augmt 31, 1943. 

80 that, you aro ad~lsed that the Board may lanfully pay the prlntln~ instructor compensation or salary 

not to oxooed $145.00 per zconth. 

of course, ue do not weaa to advise that you may 

pay tho instruotor auy suzount uhatsoovor, In 8ddzf.tlon to 

the salary heretofore agreed upon, for services alroady 

roudcrti or Par services sihlch the onrployee has contract&M 

to perform for tho couqmnoatfon heretofore agreed upon. 

So0 Constitution, Artiole 3, Section 44. Thus, ir a aon- 
810 

tionorable El B. tlrlght - page 3 

tracrt has hea-etotore becn cntercd into for the semilees 

of such instructor for a stipulate4 periti at n stlpulat.@ figure, during the period oowxed by the contrwt, 

the ooapansation of' the employee nay not be inoresse& 

rrborc the agreed figure. 

vary truly yours 

ATTOHXEX GMEllAL 08 TTXAS 

OS-RR
#### WEEKS v. STATE.

No. 20928.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 13, 1940.

Rehearing Denied April 17, 1940.

Myres & Myres, of Fort Worth, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appellant was convicted in the County Court of Johnson County for the offense of selling whisky in a dry area; and her punishment was assessed at a fine of $150.

Robert H. Williams, an employee of the Texas Liquor Control Board, testified that on July 20, 1939, he went to the premises of the appellant in company with one Red Brown and purchased from her a half pint of whisky and a can of beer; that he paid fifty-five cents for the whisky and twenty-five cents for the can of beer. The witness kept the whisky and beer as evidence against the appellant upon the trial of her case.

The appellant did not testify upon the trial, nor did she introduce any testimony in her behalf.

No bills of exception appear in the record, but in the motion for new trial, the contention is made that the representative of the Liquor Control Board was an accomplice whose testimony required corroboration. This question has been held many times contrary to the appellant’s contention, the leading case being Stevens v. State, 133 Tex.Cr.R. 333, 110 S.W.2d 906. Furthermore, the statute, Art. 666—23a, subdivision 8, Vernon’s Ann.P.C., (1939 Sup.), declares: “Upon a trial for a violation of any provision of either Article I or Article II of this Act [Texas Liquor Control Act], a conviction may be had upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice.”

In the present instance, there is nothing in the evidence to the effect that the Liquor Control Board Inspector was an accomplice, but even if he were, his testimony would not require corroboration under the statute referred to above.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Appellant’s Motion for Rehearing.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

After re-examining the record in the light of appellant’s motion for rehearing we are constrained to adhere to the conclusion expressed in the original opinion.

The motion for rehearing is overruled.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court
**Exhibit 23.2**

**Consent ofIndependent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference inthe Registration Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-114048,333-117823, No. 333-108325, 333-52696 and333-66047), Form S-4 (No. 333-116881) and Form S-8(No. 33-71346, 33-71350, 33-80213, 33-80215, 333-16349, 333-28971,333-86117, 333-86119, 333-39084, 333-55222, 333-55224, 333-72154,333-91392, 333-91394, 333-101698, 333-108294, 333-121337and 333-121388) of Medarex, Inc. of our reportdated February 8, 2005relating to the financial statements of Genmab A/S, which appears in this Form 10-K.

PricewaterhouseCoopersStatsautoriseret RevisionsinteressentskabCopenhagen, Denmark15 March 2005
| /s/  JENS  RODER         |   |
|------------------------------------|--------|
| State Authorized Public Accountant |

 

----
ex10-3.htm


    


    


    EXHIBIT
10.3

    


    Director
Fee Arrangements

    


    The
non-employee directors of 1st
Security Bank of Washington (the “Bank”) receive compensation for their service
on the board of directors of the Bank.  In setting their compensation,
the board of directors considers the significant amount of time and level of
skill required for director service.  Director compensation is
reviewed annually by the compensation committee, which makes recommendations for
approval by the Board of Directors of the Bank.  Non-employee
directors of the Bank currently receive $2,000 per month, except for the
Chairman of the Board who receives $3,000 per month, for service on the Board of
Directors of the Bank. No fees currently are paid for service on any Bank board
committees.

     

    Directors
are provided or reimbursed for travel and lodging and other customary
out-of-pocket expenses incurred in attending board and committee meetings,
industry conferences and continuing education seminars.

     

    The board
of directors of 1st
Security Bancorp, Inc., the holding company for the Bank, is identical to that
of the Bank.  No board fees are paid for service on the board of
directors of 1st
Security Bancorp, Inc.
#### LOGAN v. TEXAS MUT. LIFE INS. CO.

Motion No. 10251; No. 1561—5899.

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section A.

Oct. 13, 1932.

For former opinion, see 51 S.W.(2d) 288. •

James P. Alexander and W. R. Poage, both of Waco, for appellant.

Richey *&*Sheehy, of Waco, for appellee.

CRITZ, J.

Appellant calls our attention to the fact that we erroneously stated in our original opinion that appellee was incorporated in 1895, when the record shows that it was incorporated in 1905. We acknowledge the error. It is immaterial.

Appellant contends that under the provisions of article 5049, R. C. S. 1925, the application for the policy here sued on was not admissible in evidence, because not attached to the policy. This contention is overruled. It is settled that article 5049 has no application to life insurance policies issued after December 31, 1909. American National Ins. Co. v. Welsh (Tex. Com. App.) 22 S.W.(2d) 1063; First Texas Prudential Ins. Co. v. Pedigo (Tex. Com. App.) 50 S.W.(2d) 1091.

Appellant contends that appellee should be governed by articles 4732 and 4736, R. C. S. 1925, because it is so conducted as to make a profit for Q. B. Parot, its president and general manager. As shown by our original' opinion, appellee is incorporated as a mutual relief association, “and not for profit, and it shall have no capital stock.” If it violates its charter by making a profit for its president and. general manager, the state would ordinarily be the only party concerned. Certainly the appellant would have no interest in the matter.

Also in regard to the issue of profit the record shows that a certain amount is annually paid into appellee’s expense fund. O. B. Parot conducts its affairs under an agreement with the board of directors by the terms of which all expenses of operation, other than his services, are first paid out of the above expense fund, and he receives the balance remaining in payment for his services. The record does not show what appellee’s annual-expenses are, nor the amount paid to Parot. Furthermore, it is not shown what would be a reasonable compensation for Parot’s services. Such a record is not legally sufiicient to raise the issue as to whether this association is being conducted for Parot’s profit.

.Finally, should we treat appellee as a life insurance company governed by all the provisions of articles 4732 and 4736, R. C. S. 1925, still the questions certified by the Court of Civil Appeals in this case should stand answered as recommended in our original opinion, because, as shown by the undisputed record in this case, there never was a contract of insurance between Mrs. Logan, deceased, the named insured, and appellee, the named insurer, for any statute to apply to. This mat*300ter has been fully discussed in our original opinion and we still adhere \o that holding.

We have given this ease unusual consideration both on original submission and on rehearing, and in our opinion it has been correctly decided. We therefore recommend that appellant’s motion for rehearing be in all things overruled.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     EXHIBIT 99


               Report of Independent Certified Public Accountants


To the Stockholders of
IMC Mortgage Company and Subsidiaries


We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of IMC Mortgage
Company and Subsidiaries as of September 30, 1999, and the related consolidated
statements of operations for the three-month and nine-month periods ended
September 30, 1999 and the consolidated statement of cash flows for the nine
month period ended September 30, 1999. These financial statements are the
responsibility of the Company's management.

We conducted our review in accordance with standards established by the
American Institution of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim
financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to
financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and
accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted
in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of
which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken
as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should
be made to the accompanying financial statements for them to be in conformity
with generally accepted accounting principles.

We have previously audited, in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards, the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 1998, and the
related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash
flows for the year then ended and in our report dated March 31, 1999, we
expressed an unqualified opinion with an explanatory paragraph for a going
concern on these consolidated financial statements. In our opinion, the
information set forth in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet
as of December 31, 1998 is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation
to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.


/s/ Grant Thornton L.L.P.


Tampa, Florida
November 15, 1999
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
statements of income and balance sheets and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          20,895
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,583
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    286,029
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               333,332
<PP&E>                                         311,389
<DEPRECIATION>                                 143,208
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 573,406
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          166,837
<BONDS>                                        101,447
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          113,073
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     188,845
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   573,406
<SALES>                                        780,263
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               780,263
<CGS>                                          483,502
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  748,092
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,702
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 34,244
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,988
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             20,256
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    20,256
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.62
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-10582 Conference Calendar

LARRY DALE INGRAM, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus TARRANT COUNTY ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:95-CV-760-A

- - - - - - - - - - December 10, 1996 Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Larry Dale Ingram, # 696595, appeals the district court’s grant of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and moves to supplement the appellate record. Ingram contends that the district court erred by denying his motion for extension of time to conduct discovery before its determination on the merits of the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and erred by granting the motion for summary judgment because he raised a genuine issueNo. 96-10582 - 2 - of fact regarding the issue of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have reviewed the record and Ingram’s brief and AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment for essentially the same reasons set forth by the district court. Ingram v. Tarrant County, et al. , No. 4:95-CV-760-A (N.D. Tx. Mar. 26, 1996). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Ingram’s motion for extension of time to conduct discovery because Ingram did not state with specificity how additional discovery would create a dispute as to a material fact. International Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally's, Inc. , 939 F.2d 1257, 1267 (5th Cir. 1991), cert. denied , 502 U.S. 1059 (1992). Based on this determination, Ingram’s motion to supplement the appellate record is DENIED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED
Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE AND FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 Company Report
 
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  Date:
    
    April 15, 2010
    
    /s/ KEITH R.
STEWARTKeith R. StewartChief Executive Officer and President (principal executive officer)Date:
    
    April 15, 2010
    
    /s/ WILLIAM
MCGRATHWilliam McGrathVice President, Interim Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer)
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.1



               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8) pertaining to the 1981 Stock Option Plan, the 1993 Stock Option Plan, the
1997 Equity Incentive Plan, the Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the Warrants to
purchase common stock, and the Options to purchase common stock of Laser Power
Corporation of our report dated October 7, 1997 with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of Laser Power Corporation included in its Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended August 31, 1997, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.


                                         /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP
                                             ERNST & YOUNG LLP


San Diego, California
November 25, 1997