alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2022159EN.01000201.xml

| 12.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 159/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 159/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10607 – LONE-STAR FUNDS / SPX FLOW)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 159/02)

On 4 March 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 32022M10607. 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 32022M10607. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---
II 

Calendar No. 430 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2734 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 

at 1300 Victoria Street in Laredo, Texas, as the ‘‘George P. Kazen 

Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 24, 2018 

Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. CRUZ) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works 

MAY 23, 2018 

Reported by Mr. BARRASSO, without amendment 

A BILL 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 1300 Victoria Street in Laredo, Texas, 

as the ‘‘George P. Kazen Federal Building and United 

States Courthouse’’. 

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


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2734 RS

1 SECTION 1. GEORGE P. KAZEN FEDERAL BUILDING AND 

2 UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE. 

3 (a) DESIGNATION.—The Federal building and United 

4 States courthouse located at 1300 Victoria Street in La5 redo, Texas, shall be known and designated as the 

6 ‘‘George P. Kazen Federal Building and United States 

7 Courthouse’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

10 States to the Federal building and United States court11 house referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be 

12 a reference to the ‘‘George P. Kazen Federal Building and 

13 United States Courthouse’’. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
Calendar No. 430 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2734 

A BILL 

To designate the Federal building and United 

eral Building and United States Courthouse’’. in Laredo, Texas, as the ‘‘George P. Kazen FedStates courthouse located at 1300 Victoria Street 

MAY 23, 2018 

Reported without amendment 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
exv10w4



 





Exhibit 10.4




AMENDMENT NO. 2

TO

EMPLOYMENT AND NON-COMPETITION AGREEMENT

BETWEEN

HORIZON OFFSHORE, INC. AND J. LOUIS FRANK




     This Amendment No. 2 to Employment and Non-Competition Agreement between
Horizon Offshore, Inc. (the “Company”) and J. Louis Frank (the “Employee”)
dated May 31, 2002, as amended on September 3, 2004 (the “Amendment No. 2”), is
dated as of November 4, 2004.



     In mutual consideration of supporting a proposed recapitalization of the
Company, the Company and Employee agree as follows:



     1. The Employment and Non-Competition Agreement between Horizon Offshore,
Inc. and J. Louis Frank dated May 31, 2002, as amended on September 3, 2004,
shall hereinafter be referred to as the “Employment Agreement.”



     2. Section 5(d) of the Employment Agreement shall be amended in its
entirety to read as follows:




“5(d) As used herein, “For Good Cause” shall mean
breach of any provision of this Agreement by the
Company and failure to remedy such breach within
thirty (30) days of written notice; failure of the
Employee to be elected to the Board or to be elected
by the Board as its Chairman, Emeritus or the
relocation of the Employee’s place of employment
outside the Houston Metropolitan area.”



     3. Except as specifically set forth above all other terms, conditions,
rights, obligations and duties of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full
force and effect.



     4. This Amendment No. 2 shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance
with the laws of the State of Texas.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment No. 2 as of
the date hereinabove.

	 	 	 	 	 
	 	HORIZON OFFSHORE, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/ Bill J. Lam 	 
	 	 	Bill J. Lam 	 
	 	 	President 	 
	 


	 	 	 	 	 
	 	EMPLOYEE

 	 
	 		/s/ J. Louis Frank 	 
	 	 	J. Louis Frank
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-18-00811-CV

M. M. G., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 200TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. D-1-AG-17-000013, HONORABLE JOHN K. DIETZ, JUDGE PRESIDING

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

M.M.G. appeals from the trial court’s decree terminating his parental rights to 

his children, E.M.A.-G. and E.A.-G.1 Following a bench trial, the trial court found by clear 

and convincing evidence that a statutory ground for terminating his parental rights existed 

and that termination of those rights was in the children’s best interest. See Tex. Fam. Code

§ 161.001(b)(1)(O), (2).

On appeal, M.M.G.’s court-appointed attorney has filed a motion to withdraw and

a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California, 386 

U.S. 738, 744 (1967); Taylor v. Texas Dep’t of Protective & Regulatory Servs., 160 S.W.3d 641, 

646-47 (Tex. App.—Austin 2005, pet. denied) (applying Anders procedure in appeal from 

termination of parental rights). The brief meets the requirements of Anders by presenting a 

 

1

 We refer to appellant, who is the father of the children, and to the children by their 

initials only. See Tex. Fam. Code § 109.002(d); Tex. R. App. P. 9.8.
2

professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be 

advanced on appeal. See 386 U.S. at 744; Taylor, 160 S.W.3d at 646-47. Appellant’s counsel 

has certified to this Court that she provided M.M.G. with a copy of the Anders brief and motion 

to withdraw as counsel and informed him of his right to examine the appellate record and to 

file a pro se brief. To date, M.M.G. has not filed a pro se brief. The Department of Family and 

Protective Services has filed a response to the Anders brief, stating that it will not file a response

unless this Court requests one.

Upon receiving an Anders brief, we must conduct a full examination of all of the 

proceedings to determine whether the appeal is wholly frivolous. Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 

80 (1988). We have reviewed the entire record, including the Anders brief submitted on 

M.M.G.’s behalf, and have found nothing that would arguably support an appeal. Accordingly, 

we affirm the trial court’s decree terminating M.M.G.’s parental rights. We deny counsel’s 

motion to withdraw.2

__________________________________________

Chari L. Kelly, Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Kelly and Smith

Affirmed

Filed: May 10, 2019

 

2

 See In re P.M., 520 S.W.3d 24 (Tex. 2016) (per curiam). In In re P.M., the Texas 

Supreme Court held that the right to counsel in suits seeking the termination of parental rights 

extends “to all proceedings in [the Texas Supreme Court], including the filing of a petition for 

review.” Id. at 27. Accordingly, counsel’s obligation to M.M.G. has not yet been discharged. 

See id. If M.M.G., after consulting with counsel, desires to file a petition for review, counsel 

should timely file with the Texas Supreme Court “a petition for review that satisfies the 

standards for an Anders brief.” See id. at 27-28.
SCWC-13-0005130

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

DANA E. VINCENT,

Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

JACQUELINE CLOUSE, 

Respondent/Defendant-Appellant. 

 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-13-0005130; CIVIL NO. 10-1-2336)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner/Plaintiff-Appellee Dana E. Vincent’s

Application for Writ of Certiorari filed on February 6, 2015, is

hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, March 16, 2015.

Randall L.K.M. Rosenberg

Charles E. McKay and

Moana A. Yost

for petitioner

Jonathan L. Ortiz and

Wade J. Katano

for respondent

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-13-0005130

16-MAR-2015

11:14 AM
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): March 4, 2013





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 8.01 OTHER EVENTS





The dividend dates shown in the press release dated March 4, 2013 were incorrect and are revised as shown below:





First Merchants Corporation declared a cash dividend on March 4, 2013 of $0.03 per share, payable on March 20, 2013, to shareholders of record on March 15, 2013. For purposes of broker trading, the ex-date of the cash dividend is March 13, 2013. A copy of the press release is furnished as Exhibit 99.1 to this Current Report on Form 8-K/a.





The information in this Form 8-K/a and the attached exhibit shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), or incorporated by reference in any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except as shall be expressly set forth by specific reference in such a filing.





ITEM 9.01 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND EXHIBITS.





(a)        Not applicable.





(b)        Not applicable.





(c)        Exhibits.








Exhibit 99.1
Revised Press Release dated March 5, 2013 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: March 5, 2013













EXHIBIT INDEX








Exhibit No.
Description99.1
Revised Press Release, dated March 5, 2013 issued by First Merchants Corporation
Order filed, November 12, 2014

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 14

- 00774

- CR

____________ JOESPH LEE FIEDOR , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 248th District Court

Harris County, Texas Tr ial Court Cause No. 1415457



### ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due October 17, 2014

. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1. The court has not received a request to extend time for filing the
record. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Louise Steckler , the official court reporter, to file the record in this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

. PER CURIAM
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00377-CR

Juan Columbus Miles, Jr.

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 396th District Court

of Tarrant County (1249446D)

July 9, 2015

Opinion by Justice Meier

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Bill Meier 

 Justice Bill Meier
1 U NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
GWENDOLYN HALL , ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Civil Action No. 1: 23

- cv
- 0 1908 ( CRC ) v. ) ) CHRIS WRAY , ) ) Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff initiated this civil action in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, and on June 30, 2023, defendant removed the action. This matter is before the C ourt on its initial review of p laintiff ’s pro se amended complaint ( ECF No. 1

- 1 )

. The C ourt will dismiss the

c omplaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (ii), which permits dismissal of a case “at any
time” if the Court determines that it is frivolous

. “A complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) ( quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007) )

. A complaint that lacks “an arguable basis
either in law or in fact” is frivolous , Neitzke v. Williams , 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989 ) , and the Court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over a frivolous complaint , Hagans v. Lavine , 415 U.S. 528, 536

- 37 (1 974) (“Over the years, this Court has repeatedly held that the federal courts are without power to entertain claims otherwise within their jurisdiction if they are ‘so attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit.’” ) ( quoting Newburypor t Water Co. v. Newburyport , 193 U.S. 561, 579 (1904) ) ; Tooley v. Napolitano , 586 F.3d 1006, 1010 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (examining cases dismissed “for patent insubstantiality,” including where plaintiff2

allegedly “was subjected to a campaign of surveillance and harassment deriving from uncertain origins

. ”). Consequently, a C ourt is obligated to dismiss a complaint as frivolous “ when the facts alleged rise to the level of the irrat ional or the wholly incredible,” Denton v. Hernandez , 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992) , or “postulat[e] events and circumstances of a wholly fanciful kind,” Crisafi v. Holland , 655 F.2d 1305, 130 7

- 08 (D.C. Cir. 1981)

. The instant co mplaint satisfies this
standard. Plaintiff’s amended complaint is, in a word, nonsens e. I ts three short pa ragraphs allege that an unidentified individual exchanged sex for marijuana, that another unidentified individual befriended the Mexican Mafia, and that a box of evidence was stolen from a post office in Sarasota, Florida, but do not manage to allege coher ent facts supporting an actual legal claim. Because the pleading is f

rivolous on its face , it will be dismissed without prejudice

. An Order is issued separately.

CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER DATE: July 7, 2023 United States District Judge
* 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. 96-10174 No. 96-10382 No. 96-10692 Summary Calendar

ROBERT L. AVRETT, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus POLY-AMERICA, INC.; STEVEN GRANT ROSS; JOAN M. TASKER; WANDA WAKELAND; JOHN DOES 1-3; JANE DOES 1-3, Defendants-Appellees,
EDWARD M. CAVUTO; GARY O. BOOTH; INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; JOHN DOES 1-3; JANE DOES 1-3, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:95-CV-803-A

- - - - - - - - - - March 14, 1997 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Robert L. Avrett, Jr., appeals the district court’s dismissal of his action against Poly-America, Inc., and itsNo. 96-10174 No. 96-10382 No. 96-10692 - 2 - employees, Steven Grant Ross, Joan M. Tasker, and Wanda Wakeland; the Internal Revenue Service and its employees, Edward M. Cavuto and Gary O. Booth; and John Does 1-3 and Jane Does 1-3 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). He argues that the defendants violated his Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights by issuing and honoring levies against his wages for income tax deficiencies. He argues that the district court failed to liberally construe his complaint and erred in ordering him to file an amended complaint asserting the facts supporting his claim against Cavuto and Booth in their individual capacities. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for essentially the reasons given by the district court. Avrett v. Poly-America, Inc., et al. , Nos. 4:95-CV-803-A (Feb. 6, 1996, March 26, 1996, and April 9, 1996). Avrett’s appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, Avrett’s appeal is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. Avrett is cautioned that future frivolous civil suits and appeals filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of sanctions. Avrett is cautioned further to review any pending suits and appeals to ensure that they do not raiseNo. 96-10174 No. 96-10382 No. 96-10692 - 3 - arguments that are frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND NOTES INCLUDED IN THIS FORM 10-K AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          53,250
<SECURITIES>                                    12,891
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,828
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     19,540
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               121,716
<PP&E>                                         161,012
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 333,284
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           56,695
<BONDS>                                        121,548
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        91,913
<OTHER-SE>                                      61,106
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   333,284
<SALES>                                        169,671
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               174,896
<CGS>                                          138,702
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  165,576
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,384
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  9,320
<INCOME-TAX>                                       308
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              9,012
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     9,012
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.59
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 182 (Thursday, September 19, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 76885]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-21364]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: September 19, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
September 12, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 327 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2024-665, CP2024-674.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-21364 Filed 9-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D2023-0830

Lower Tribunal No. 13-CF-000271

_____________________________

JUSTIN MICHAEL SUOMINEN,

Appellant, 

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lee County.

Margaret O. Steinbeck, Judge.

July 2, 2024

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOZNIAK and SMITH, JJ., and LAMBERT, B.D., Associate Judge, concur.

Justin Michael Suominen, Daytona Beach, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Natalia Reyna-Pimiento, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING 

AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED