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

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

|   | 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)) |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

| Exhibit 99.1 | Slide presentation, utilized April 26, 2012, during conference call and web cast by First Merchants Corporation |
|--------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

----

| 99.1 | Slide presentation, utilized April 26, 2012, during conference call and web cast by First Merchants Corporation |
|------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
# C_2022066EN.01002501.xml

| 8.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 66/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 66/25

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10432 – PTTGC / ALLNEX)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 66/02)

On 6 December 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10432. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10432. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
EXHIBIT 10.2

                         THE CHARLOTTE MARDEN 1993 TRUST
                           1290 South Ocean Boulevard
                            Palm Beach, Florida 33480

March 25, 2002



Mr. Jack Jaiven
nStor Corporation
100 Century Boulevard

West Palm Beach, FL  33417

Dear Jack:

The maturity date of the following  Note due to The Charlotte  Marden 1993 Trust
(the "Trust") from nStor Corporation is hereby extended to December 15, 2002.

        Subordinated   Promissory  Note  for  $450,000,   dated  June  7,  2001,
        previously extended to April 1, 2002.

In addition,  nStor hereby agrees that until the Note is paid in full, the Trust
will have the right to convert  the  outstanding  principal  balance of the Note
plus  accrued  but unpaid  interest  thereon to nStor  common  stock  based on a
conversion price of $.40 per share.

All other terms of the Note remain the same.

                                       The Charlotte Marden 1993 Trust

                                       By:/s/ Bernard A. Marden

Agreed:

nStor Corporation

By: /s/ Jack Jaiven
   Jack Jaiven, Vice President/Treasurer
1

The Honorable Richard G. Kopf, United States District Judge for the District

of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-1493

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Damon E. Fitzgerald, * District of Nebraska.

*

Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: March 6, 2009

Filed: March 11, 2009

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Following a jury trial, Damon Fitzgerald was found guilty of being a felon in

possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924(e). Fitzgerald

argues that, in calculating the advisory Guidelines imprisonment range of 235-293

months, the district court1

 erred in denying a 2-level reduction for accepting

responsibility, see U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1.
-2-

We review for clear error the district court’s denial of the acceptance-ofresponsibility reduction. See United States v. Jones, 539 F.3d 895, 897 (8th Cir.

2008). The district court did not clearly err in denying the reduction. See United

States v. Winters, 416 F.3d 856, 860 (8th Cir. 2005) (factual determination on whether

defendant has demonstrated acceptance of responsibility is entitled to great deference

and should be reversed only if it is so clearly erroneous as to be without foundation).

Fitzgerald conceded factual guilt only through his testimony at trial after putting the

government to its burden of proof. See United States v. Crumley, 528 F.3d 1053,

1067-68 (8th Cir. 2008) (reduction is generally not appropriate if government goes

through burden of proving its case at trial, unless defendant was merely ascertaining

viability of issue unrelated to guilt, such as constitutional challenge to statute). We

also find that no Sixth Amendment concerns are implicated. See United States v.

Benitez, 531 F.3d 711, 717 (8th Cir. 2008) (no merit to argument that § 3E1.1 has

unconstitutional chilling effect on Sixth Amendment right to trial).

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________
# C_2022319EN.01000401.xml

| 23.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10823 – CLEARLAKE / TA ASSOCIATES / EPHESOFT)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 319/04)

On 12 August 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10823. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10823. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
# C_2022423EN.01000701.xml

| 7.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 423/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 423/7

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10923 – PLASTIC OMNIUM / HBPO)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 423/02)

On 17 October 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10923. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10923. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
# C_2022269EN.01002601.xml

| 13.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/26

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10565 – VOLKSWAGEN / TRINITY / EUROPCAR)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 269/04)

On 25 May 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10565. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10565. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
Devany, Dennis (OST) 

DoT'O^r^ /'?'^7-:?^^a 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Daniel Case [dcaseOOl @twcny.rr.com] 

Wednesday, August 18, 2010 5:26 PM 

Devany, Dennis (OST) 

EAS Proposal - Massena, NY 

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

I wish to register my support for Gulfsteam Airline's proposal to provide essential air 

service to Massena, NY. 

While I am certainly not a "frequent" flier, the fact that I have children and grandchildren 

located in the Boston area (Gulfsteam's large-hub destination), I find this to be much more 

attractive than flying into the smaller Albany airport on a much smaller aircraft and then 

flying to Boston should the need or desire arise. Also, with aging parents and grandparents, this option would provide much better access for many Massena-area 

students/young adults, attending school and living/working in the Boston area. 

As I understand the law, Massena is entitled to be connected to a medium- or large-hub 

and also to be afforded service by 15+ passenger aircraft. Gulfstream's proposal affords 

us both. 

Thank you for your consideration of my opinion. 

Sincerely, 

Daniel E. Case 

89 Jefferson Ave. 

Massena, NY 13662
Elias E. Robledo, /s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

May 13, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00195

- CV

RJ MERIDIAN CARE OF ALICE, LTD . a/k/a Meridian Care of Alice, Appellant

v.

Elias ROBLEDO and Eleal E. Robledo, Individually and as Heirs/Administrators and Representatives of The Estate of Adelaida Ortiz Robledo, De ceased, Appellee s

Fro m the 79th Judicial District Court, Jim Wells County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13

- 07

- 52422

- CV Honorable Richard C. Terrell, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellees have filed a motion for a thirty

- day extension of time to file their brief in this accelerated appeal. We grant the motion in part and order appellees’ brief due May 22, 2014.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 13th day of May, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 249 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                        Calendar No. 22
115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 249

                           [Report No. 115-8]

   To provide that the pueblo of Santa Clara may lease for 99 years 
            certain restricted land, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            February 1, 2017

Mr. Udall (for himself and Mr. Heinrich) introduced the following bill; 
  which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs

                             March 22, 2017

               Reported by Mr. Hoeven, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide that the pueblo of Santa Clara may lease for 99 years 
            certain restricted land, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF PUEBLO OF SANTA CLARA LAND ELIGIBLE FOR 99-YEAR 
              LEASE.

    Subsection (a) of the first section of the Act of August 9, 1955 
(commonly known as the ``Long-Term Leasing Act'') (25 U.S.C. 415(a)), 
is amended--
            (1) by striking ``Indians,,'' and inserting ``Indians,'';
            (2) by inserting ``Ohkay Owingeh pueblo,'' after 
        ``Cochiti,'';
            (3) by inserting ``the pueblo of Santa Clara,'' after 
        ``Pojoaque,'';
            (4) by striking ``the the lands'' and inserting ``the 
        land'';
            (5) by striking ``lands held in trust for the Pueblo of 
        Santa Clara,''; and
            (6) by striking ``lands held in trust for Ohkay Owingeh 
        Pueblo''.
                                                        Calendar No. 22

115th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                 S. 249

                           [Report No. 115-8]

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

   To provide that the pueblo of Santa Clara may lease for 99 years 
            certain restricted land, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                             March 22, 2017

                       Reported without amendment
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
Article 9 financial data schedule is restated for 10% stock dividend declared
September 28, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                      66,539,000
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             9,860,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                490,044,000
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                  1,029,232,000
<ALLOWANCE>                                 10,856,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,673,953,000
<DEPOSITS>                               1,371,415,000
<SHORT-TERM>                                85,169,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                         18,243,000
<LONG-TERM>                                 30,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  9,250,000
<COMMON>                                       220,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 159,656,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>           1,673,953,000
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             43,566,000
<INTEREST-INVEST>                           15,689,000
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               477,000
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            59,732,000
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          26,252,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          28,318,000
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       31,414,000
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                1,360,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                           2,824,000
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             24,691,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             14,758,000
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                  14,758,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 9,891,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .43
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .42
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.17
<LOANS-NON>                                  4,714,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                 2,532,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               446,000
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                            10,116,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                1,011,000
<RECOVERIES>                                   391,000
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                           10,856,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                        10,856,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### JONES v. STATE.

No. 18528.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 4, 1936.

Tom L. Robinson, of Gatesville, for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

The conviction is for the possession for the purpose of sale of whisky in a dry territory; punishment, a fine of $100 and ten days’ imprisonment in the county jail.

This is a conviction for a violation of the provisions of chapter 467, Acts of the Second Called Session, 44 Leg., 1935 (Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 666—1 et seq.). Appellant was charged with possessing whisky for the purpose of sale in a dry area, to wit, Hamilton county. Section ,23a of article 1 of said chapter (Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 666—23a) makes it unlawful for any person to possess intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale in any dry area. Passing up any other questions that may be raised in the record, our attention is called to the fact that the information in this case does not charge appellant with possessing such liquor for the purpose of sale, but merely charges him with the possession of liquor. We find nothing in the statute which, under any circumstances, penalizes a person who lives in such territory merely for possessing intoxicating liquor. Such possession must be for the purpose of sale. The information being fatally defective in this record, we are compelled to reverse the case. We find the complaint does charge appellant with possessing such liquor for the purpose of sale. The complaint itself is doubtful, but we do not at this time pass on same. It would be better if the complaint-followed the averments of that in No. 18523, Claude Privitt v. State, 98 S.W.(2d) 204, opinion this day handed down. The prosecution will not be dismissed because a new information may be filed upon the complaint.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2744 

To reauthorize the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation System Act 

of 2009, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 11, 2015 

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska (for himself, Mr. SABLAN, and Mr. GUINTA) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in 

each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Observation 

System Act of 2009, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Integrated Coastal and 

5 Ocean Observation System Act Amendments of 2015’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2744 IH

1 SEC. 2. STAGGERED TERMS FOR NATIONAL INTEGRATED 

2 COASTAL AND OCEAN OBSERVATION SYSTEM 

3 ADVISORY COMMITTEE. 

4 Section 12304(d)(3)(B) of the Integrated Coastal 

5 and Ocean Observation System Act of 2009 (33 U.S.C. 

6 3603(d)(3)(B)) is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘Members’’ and inserting the 

8 following: 

9 ‘‘(i) IN GENERAL.—Except as pro10 vided in clause (ii), members’’; and 

11 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

12 ‘‘(ii) STAGGERED TERMS.—The Ad13 ministrator may appoint or reappoint a 

14 member for a partial term of 1 or 2 years 

15 in order to establish a system of staggered 

16 terms. The Administrator may appoint or 

17 reappoint a member under this clause only 

18 once. A member appointed or reappointed 

19 to a partial term under this clause may not 

20 serve more than one full term.’’. 

21 SEC. 3. INTEGRATED COASTAL AND OCEAN OBSERVATION 

22 SYSTEM COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS. 

23 Section 12305(a) of the Integrated Coastal and 

24 Ocean Observation System Act of 2009 (33 U.S.C. 

25 3604(a)) is amended by inserting ‘‘disburse appropriated 

26 funds to,’’ after ‘‘agreements, with,’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2744 IH

1 SEC. 4. REAUTHORIZATION OF INTEGRATED COASTAL AND 

2 OCEAN OBSERVATION SYSTEM ACT OF 2009. 

3 Section 12311 of the Integrated Coastal and Ocean 

4 Observation System Act of 2009 (33 U.S.C. 3610) is 

5 amended by striking ‘‘are authorized to be appropriated 

6 to the Secretary of Commerce for fiscal years 2009 

7 through 2013 such sums as are necessary’’ and inserting 

8 ‘‘is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Com9 merce for each of fiscal years 2015 through 2019 

10 $36,151,000’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS