alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### HARPER v. STATE.

No. 18512.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 12, 1936.

Clark Wills, of Fort Worth, and A. Q. Mustain, of Aubrey, for appellant.

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

*192HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for perjury, punishment being assessed at two years in the penitentiary.

It was alleged in the indictment in substance that appellant had been theretofore charged with removing from Denton county certain described property upon which he had given a valid mortgage, and that upon the trial for said offense appellant had filed application for a suspended sentence, and had gone upon the witness stand and testified that he had never theretofore been convicted of a felony. It was further alleged that appellant’s testimony was false and that in fact he had been theretofore convicted in Cooke county of the crime pf burglary.

Every material averment in the indictment — which if true rendered appellant guilty of perjury — -was supported by the State’s evidence. We see no necessity of setting out same in detail. There are no bills of exception in the record. The indictment was in proper form.

The judgment is affirmed.
UNITED STATES
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                              Washington, DC 20549


                                   FORM 8-K/A

                                 CURRENT REPORT

                     PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE

                         SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

                         ______________________________

       DATE OF REPORT (Date of earliest event reported): February 8, 2005

                         ______________________________

                           FIRST MERCHANTS CORPORATION
             (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

                         _______________________________

          INDIANA                   0-17071                 35-1544218
(State or other jurisdiction (Commission File Number)      (IRS Employer
     of incorporation)                                   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)



<PAGE>

         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:

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

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

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

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


Item 5.02.         Departure of Directors or Principal Officers;  Election of
                   Directors;  Appointment of Principal Officers.

         (d)      First  Merchants  Corporation  (the  "Corporation") previously
reported on a Form 8-K, dated February 8, 2005,  that Roderick  English had been
appointed to the Corporation's Board of Directors.

         On April 14, 2005,  Mr. English was appointed to the  Compensation  and
Human Resources Committee of the Corporation's Board of Directors.



<PAGE>


                                   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.

         DATE:  April 15, 2005.

                                                     FIRST MERCHANTS CORPORATION


                                                     By:  /s/ Larry R. Helms
                                                            Larry R. Helms,
                                                           Senior Vice President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-01-1997
<CASH>                                            6058
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    76483
<ALLOWANCES>                                      2212
<INVENTORY>                                      55851
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                140697
<PP&E>                                          173743
<DEPRECIATION>                                   44381
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  358803
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            77268
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         19971
<OTHER-SE>                                      110086
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    358803
<SALES>                                         502715
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                502715
<CGS>                                           420500
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   453014
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                8393
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  41308
<INCOME-TAX>                                     15815
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              25493
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     25493
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .91
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .91
        

</TABLE>
# C_2022467EN.01003401.xml

| 8.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 467/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 467/34

---

Special report 24/2022: ‘e-Government actions targeting businesses – Commission’s actions implemented, but availability of e-services still varies across the EU’

(2022/C 467/04)

The European Court of Auditors has published its special report 24/2022: ‘e-Government actions targeting businesses – Commission’s actions implemented, but availability of e-services still varies across the EU’.

The report can be consulted directly or downloaded at the European Court of Auditors’ website: https://www.eca.europa.eu/en/Pages/DocItem.aspx?did=62438

---
Exhibit 32.1

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 Quarterly Report of Park Bancorp, Inc., (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 13, 2008, (the Report), I,
David A. Remijas, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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, as amended; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/    David A. RemijasDavid A. RemijasPresident, Chief Executive OfficerNovember 13, 2008




22.
Exhibit
      23(e)










**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**




We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in **** Registration
      Statements Nos. 333-84594 and 333-70702 on Form S-3, and 2-82760, 33-6369,
      033-63193, 333-62070, 333-113204, 333-116192 and 333-17701 on Form S-8, of
      Peoples Energy Corporation, of our report dated December 21, 2006 relating
      to
      the consolidated financial statements of Elwood Energy LLC and subsidiaries
      (which report expresses an unqualified opinion) appearing in the Annual
      Report on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 of Peoples Energy
      Corporation for the year ended September 30, 2006.






/s/
      Deloitte & Touche LLP




Richmond,
      Virginia


December
      29, 2006
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SAID FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                      16,642,825
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  240,363
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,994,457
<PP&E>                                         756,107
<DEPRECIATION>                                  42,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              17,708,564
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          220,255
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            52
<OTHER-SE>                                  17,488,257
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                17,448,309
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               215,519
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               732,881
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (517,362)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (517,362)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (517,362)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (100.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### DWYER et al. v. HUDSPETH COUNTY CONSERVATION AND RECLAMATION DIST. NO. 1 et al.

No. 3183.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

May 2, 1935.

Rehearing Denied May 16, 1935.

R. E. Cunningham and Whitaker & Peticolas, all of El Paso, for plaintiffs in error.

Frank B. Clayton, R. F. Burges, and Walter S. Howe, all of El Paso, for defendants in error.

PELPHREY, Chief Justice.

This case is practically identical with the case of Anna Dwyer and Joseph L. Dwyer v. Hudspeth County Conservation and Reclamation District No. 1 et al., No. 3182 (Tex. Civ. App.) 83 S.W.(2d) 388, this day decided; the difference in the facts involved being that the owner of the land in No. 3182 was I. E. Elder and wife, while the'suit here was against W. E. Wood and in No. 3182, the land was sold to Chesser and Williams, while in this case the sale was made to Haskell V. Cooke and wife.

This case, like No. 3182, was also before this court on a former appeal, Christie et al. v. Hudspeth County Conservation and Reclamation District No. 1 et al., 64 S.W. (2d) 978, to which report reference is here made for a more complete statement of the facts.

The only question presented here which was not presented in No. 3182 is that of the correctness of the trial court’s action in sustaining an exception to the allegation in plaintiffs in error’s amended answer that E. L. Dawson, Jr., had acquired the interest of W. E. Wood in the land in controversy.

Plaintiffs in error now contend that they were entitled to allege such fact and have him made a party to the suit. Dawson was not named as a party by plaintiffs in error and no request that he be made a party appears in their pleadings.

This matter presents no error. The same court that sustained the exception had theretofore rendered judgment foreclosing a tax lien against the property and had ordered it sold to satisfy such lien. From such judgment Wood had not appealed.

Being of the opinion that the questions presented have been correctly disposed of in No. 3182, and that the action above mentioned constitutes no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
# C_2022031EN.01001201.xml

| 21.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 31/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/12

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10599 – Clearlake Capital Group / STG Partners / Dodge Construction Network)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 31/08)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Clearlake Capital Group, L.P. (‘Clearlake’, United States of America), |
| --- | --- |

—

Clearlake Capital Group, L.P. (‘Clearlake’, United States of America),

| — | Dodge Construction Network Holdings, L.P. (‘Dodge’, United States of America), controlled by STG Partners, LLC (‘STG’, United States of America) |
| --- | --- |

—

Dodge Construction Network Holdings, L.P. (‘Dodge’, United States of America), controlled by STG Partners, LLC (‘STG’, United States of America)

Clearlake and STG acquire within the meaning of Articles 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Dodge.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | for Clearlake: private equity investment, with portfolio companies active in software and technology-enabled services, energy and industrials, and consumer, |
| --- | --- |

—

for Clearlake: private equity investment, with portfolio companies active in software and technology-enabled services, energy and industrials, and consumer,

| — | for STG: private equity investment, with portfolio companies active in software, data and analytics, |
| --- | --- |

—

for STG: private equity investment, with portfolio companies active in software, data and analytics,

| — | for Dodge: provider of data, analytics, news, and intelligence serving the North American commercial construction industry. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Dodge: provider of data, analytics, news, and intelligence serving the North American commercial construction industry.

3.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10599 – Clearlake Capital Group / STG Partners / Dodge Construction Network

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

2

---
#### STEELE v. STATE.

No. 18132.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 8, 1936.

*151Cunningham *&*Lipscomb, of Bonham, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Judge.

It was charged against appellant that while intoxicated he drove an automobile upon a public highway in the city of Bon-ham. Upon conviction the punishment assessed was imprisonment in the county jail for 90 days and a prohibition against driving an automobile upon any highway in the state for a period of two years.

The state’s evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding that appellant was intoxicated at the time he was driving the automobile. Appellant denied that he was drunk from the use of intoxicating liquor, but claimed that he had taken two ounces of paregoric, and some veronal tablets, and that his condition was attributable to the effect of such medicine.

The court instructed the jury in the main charge that if appellant was intoxicated from the use of paregoric or any other drug except alcoholic liquor they should acquit him, and also gave a special charge at appellant’s request to the effect that if the intoxication or drunken condition of appellant was produced by the.use of paregoric or veronal tablets alone or both together, to acquit. In both the main charge and the special charge given the court embraced the question of reasonable doubt in direct connection with the defensive charge.

Appellant requested * that a special charge on the issue of insanity be given, and brings complaint forward because of its refusal. We are not impressed with the view that the issue of insanity was raised by the evidence.

Appellant objected to that portion of the charge authorizing the jury, in event of conviction, to recommend the prohibition of appellant from driving an automobile, on the ground that it was a punishment which was not a part of the penalty prescribed in the statute which defined and fixed the punishment for driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated. The question presented seems to have been passed upon adversely to appellant’s contention in Williams v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 76 S.W.(2d) 511, and in Haworth v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 88 S.W.(2d) 115.

The judgment is affirmed.

MORROW, P. J., absent.
Exhibit 32.2



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 Commodore Applied Technologies, Inc., (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ted R. Sharp, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 81 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 Commodore Applied Technologies, Inc.







/s/ Ted R. Sharp                                            DATE:  August 14, 2008

Ted R. Sharp, Chief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Commodore Applied Technologies Inc. and will be retained by Commodore Applied Technologies, Inc. to be furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

















1
# C_2022199EN.01000201.xml

| 17.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 199/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 199/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10564 – APOLLO / MISSGUIDED)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 199/02)

On 9 February 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 32022M10564. 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 32022M10564. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---
# C_2022269EN.01002701.xml

| 13.7.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 269/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.7.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 269/27

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10799 – REGGEBORGH / ELLAKTOR)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 269/05)

On 7 July 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 32022M10799. 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 32022M10799. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---