alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<XBRL>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<!--XBRL Document Created with Wdesk from Workiva-->
<!--Copyright 2022 Workiva-->
<!--r:1aecbe60-26ae-4f9f-8521-60877174e73a,g:f4a8c913-20f7-4676-9055-13a6f653585e-->
<xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:link="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/linkbase" xmlns:frme="http://www.firstmerchants.com/20220726" xmlns:xbrli="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance" xmlns:dtr-types="http://www.xbrl.org/dtr/type/2020-01-21" attributeFormDefault="unqualified" elementFormDefault="qualified" targetNamespace="http://www.firstmerchants.com/20220726">
  <xs:import namespace="http://fasb.org/us-gaap/2022" schemaLocation="https://xbrl.fasb.org/us-gaap/2022/elts/us-gaap-2022.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xlink-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xbrl-instance-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/linkbase" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xbrl-linkbase-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.xbrl.org/dtr/type/2020-01-21" schemaLocation="https://www.xbrl.org/dtr/type/2020-01-21/types.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://xbrl.sec.gov/dei/2022" schemaLocation="https://xbrl.sec.gov/dei/2022/dei-2022.xsd"/>
  <xs:annotation>
    <xs:appinfo>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="frme-20220726_lab.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/labelLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="frme-20220726_pre.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="frme-20220726_def.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/definitionLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:roleType id="DocumentandEntityInformationDocument" roleURI="http://www.firstmerchants.com/role/DocumentandEntityInformationDocument">
        <link:definition>0001001 - Document - Document and Entity Information Document</link:definition>
        <link:usedOn>link:presentationLink</link:usedOn>
        <link:usedOn>link:calculationLink</link:usedOn>
        <link:usedOn>link:definitionLink</link:usedOn>
      </link:roleType>
    </xs:appinfo>
  </xs:annotation>
  <xs:element id="frme_DepositarySharesMember" abstract="true" name="DepositarySharesMember" nillable="true" xbrli:periodType="duration" substitutionGroup="xbrli:item" type="dtr-types:domainItemType"/>
</xs:schema>
</XBRL>
# C_2022172EN.01000201.xml

| 26.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 172/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 172/2

---

Prior notification of a concentration

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

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 172/02)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft (‘VWAG’, Germany), |
| --- | --- |

—

Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft (‘VWAG’, Germany),

| — | Trinity Investments Designated Activity Company (‘Trinity’, Ireland), managed by Attestor Limited (UK), |
| --- | --- |

—

Trinity Investments Designated Activity Company (‘Trinity’, Ireland), managed by Attestor Limited (UK),

| — | Europcar Mobility Group, S.A (‘Europcar’, France). |
| --- | --- |

—

Europcar Mobility Group, S.A (‘Europcar’, France).

VWAG and Trinity will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation joint control of the whole of Europcar.

The concentration is accomplished by way of public bid announced on 20 September 2021.

2.

| — | VWAG is mainly active in the development, manufacture and distribution of new passenger cars, light commercial vehicles and trucks, as well as the provision of car rental and other mobility services, |
| --- | --- |

—

VWAG is mainly active in the development, manufacture and distribution of new passenger cars, light commercial vehicles and trucks, as well as the provision of car rental and other mobility services,

| — | Trinity is a private investment company established for the purpose of pursuing certain investment opportunities, notably in growth stage companies, |
| --- | --- |

—

Trinity is a private investment company established for the purpose of pursuing certain investment opportunities, notably in growth stage companies,

| — | Europcar is mainly active in the provision of short-term car rental services, as well as other mobility services and the sale of used vehicles to resellers. |
| --- | --- |

—

Europcar is mainly active in the provision of short-term car rental services, as well as other mobility services and the sale of used vehicles to resellers.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

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.10565 – VOLKSWAGEN / TRINITY / EUROPCAR

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

---
# C_2022427EN.01005101.xml

| 9.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/51

---

SINGLE EUROPEAN SKY ATM RESEARCH 3 JOINT UNDERTAKING

Publication of the final accounts for the financial year 2021

(2022/C 427/51)

The complete version of the final accounts may be found at the following address:

https://www.sesarju.eu/node/4189

---
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**THE PENN TRAFFIC COMPANY**

 

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 Annual Report of The Penn Traffic Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending January 28, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Tod A. Nestor, Senior Vice President Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 

/s/ Tod A. Nestor                 

Tod A. Nestor

Senior Vice President Chief Financial Officer

 

August 16, 2007
# C_2022438EN.01000201.xml

| 18.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 438/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 438/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10888 – INEOS / SINOPEC / INEOS STYROLUTION ADVANCED MATERIALS)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 438/02)

On 25 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 32022M10888. 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 32022M10888. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---
#### Gahr, Appellant, *v.*Smith, Exr., et al., Appellees.

(No. 29115

Decided May 6, 1942.)

*Mr. Robert M. Ochiltree*and *Mr. Benjamin H. Stites,*for appellant.

*Messrs. Dinsmore, Shohl, Sawyer & Dinsmore, Mr. George II. Kattenhorn, Messrs. Waite, Schindél S Bayless, Mr. James B. MilliJcen, Mr. John C. Avery, Mr. Raymond J. Wilson, Mr. Bert H. Long, Messrs.*
      *657
      *Smith & Smith, Messrs. Clark & Robinson, Mr. John F. Hellebush*and *Messrs. Heilker é Heilker,*for appellees.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Williams, Matthias, Hast and Zimmerman, JJ., concur.

Bettman, J., not participating.
# C_2022474EN.01002901.xml

| 14.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 474/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 474/29

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10955 – KIRK / LFI / ATP / FERROSAN MEDICAL DEVICES)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 474/06)

On 5 December 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 32022M10955. 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 32022M10955. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---
Dismissed and Opinion Filed February 9, 2018 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-17-01395-CV 

AT&T INC. AND SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY D/B/A AT&T 

TEXAS, Appellants 

V. 

ANDREA CHRISTIAN AND AMBER HICKS, Appellees 

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-17-08124 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Lang-Miers, and Justice Stoddart 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright 

Seeking to appeal the trial court’s denial of their rule 91a motion to dismiss a baseless 

claim, appellants have filed a petition for permissive interlocutory appeal. We deny the petition 

and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 

51.014(d) (West Supp. 2017); Tex. R. App. P. 28.3, 42.3(a). 

 

171395F.P05 

 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

AT&T INC. AND SOUTHWESTERN 

BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY D/B/A 

AT&T TEXAS, Appellants 

No. 05-17-01395-CV V. 

ANDREA CHRISTIAN AND AMBER 

HICKS, Appellees 

 On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-17-08124. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. 

Justices Lang-Miers and Stoddart 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED for want 

of jurisdiction. 

 It is ORDERED that appellees ANDREA CHRISTIAN AND AMBER HICKS recover 

their costs of this appeal from appellants AT&T INC. AND SOUTHWESTERN BELL 

TELEPHONE COMPANY D/B/A AT&T TEXAS. 

Judgment entered February 9, 2018
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-2064

GILBERT L. SPURLOCK, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS; MARK ADKINS, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:07-cv-00643-RCC)

Submitted: January 5, 2009 Decided: January 21, 2009

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gilbert L. Spurlock, Appellant Pro Se. Carol A. Casto, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Gilbert L. Spurlock appeals the district court’s order accepting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his civil complaint for lack of jurisdiction. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. See Spurlock v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs , No. 3:07-cv-00643-RCC (S.D.W. Va. Aug. 21, 2008). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### TEXAS LIFE INS. CO. et al. v. MILLER et ux.

No. 2010.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

Nov. 18, 1937.

Randall & Gray and Sam W. French, all of Dallas, for appellants.

Norman R. Crozier, Jr., and Hugh S. Grady, both of Dallas, for appellees.

ALEXANDER, Justice.

This case was transferred to this court from the Court of Civil Appeals at Dallas. The suit was brought jointly against Texas Life Insurance Company and John D. May-field. Each defendant filed a separate plea •of privilege, and sought to have the cause transferred to McLennan county. Separate hearings were had and separate orders were entered overruling the pleas of privilege. Each defendant gave notice of appeal and filed a separate appeal bond. It appears, however, that the. hearings were all had at the same term of court, and that the appeals were perfected at the same time. Appellees haye moved to strike the transcript and statement of facts, because the parties-filed .a joint transcript and statement of facts. Since both orders appealed from were entered in the same cause at the same term of court and both appeals were perfected at the same time, we think the appeal by both defendants can properly be brought before this court by single transcript. 3 Tex.Jur. 687. We know of no reason why these matters cannot be as satisfactorily presented by a single transcript as they could by two separate transcripts, and, therefore, we see no reason why we should put the parties to the. expense of preparing two records and ourselves to the trouble of hearing and considering two cases, when all errors complained of can as easily and satisfactorily be determined at a single hearing in a single cause.

Appellees’ motion is therefore overruled.

GALLAGHER, C. J., took no part in the consideration and disposition of this motion.
From: thomas.patzner@schneider-electric.com [mailto:thomas.patzner@schneider-electric.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 1:33 PM 

To: vijay.tendulkar@onyxpower.com; eduardorobles@eaton.com; tballo@earthjustice.org; 

gbf1@pge.com; Brian Coffey 

Cc: chad.kennedy@schneider-electric.com 

Subject: Data Center Transformer - Sub Team 

Members: Vijay Tendulkar, Onyx Power Eduardo Robles, Eaton Timothy Ballo, Earthjustice Gary Fernstrom, PGE Brian Coffey, Navigant Thomas Patzner, Schneider Electric 

Looking for 2 hours of your time to discuss - please let me know what time works for the discussion and 

working meeting. Suggested time - please reply which time slot works best. Thursday Dec 8 Eastern 11:30 to 1:30 Central 10:30 to 12:30 Pacific 8:30 to 10:30 

 Thursday Dec 8 Eastern 1:30 to 3:30 Central 12:30 to 2:30 Pacific 10:30 to 12:30 

 Friday Dec 9 Eastern 1:30 to 3:30 Central 12:30 to 2:30 Pacific 10:30 to 12:30 

Agenda for discussion Cover how the statue states what needs to be done to be excluded by the Secretary: 

 any transformer not listed in clause (ii) that is excluded by the Secretary by rule because—‘‘ (I) the transformer is designed for a special application; (II) the transformer is unlikely to be used in general purpose applications; and‘‘ (III) the application of standards to the transformer would not result in significant energy savings. 

Data Center Transformers - what make them unique CAN NOT BE DONE BECAUSE OF APPLICATION - MUST BE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS - 

from Richard Parker 

example K-13 does not make the product different than Distribution (K-12, Hospitals, commercial building 

all use K-rated Devices) 

Data Center Transformers Can we define the product so that it will unlikely be used in general purpose CAN NOT BE DONE VIA LABELING - from Richard Parker 
Data Center Transformers would not result in significant energy savings - Loading point increasing from 40-50% to 80-100% how do we show that energy savings by regulating at 35% is actually negative? 

White Paper from Schneider Electric 

Current Document from Onyx Power 

 

Thomas Patzner | Low Voltage Transformers | Square D / Schneider Electric 

1010 Airpark Center Drive | Nashville, TN 37217 |  Office: 615-844-8536 |  Five Digit Dialing: 48536  e-mail: thomas.patzner@us.schneider-electric.com |  Website: www.us.squared.com/EEXFMR Low Voltage Transformer Technical Support  e-mail: lvgp-marketing@us.schneider-electric.com 

 Please consider the environment before printing this email
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2928 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2928

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 201 B Street in Perryville, Arkansas, as the ``Harold George Bennett 
                             Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. HAROLD GEORGE BENNETT POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 201 B Street in Perryville, Arkansas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Harold George Bennett Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Harold 
George Bennett Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives April 18, 2016.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
114th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 2928

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 201 B Street in Perryville, Arkansas, as the ``Harold George Bennett 
                             Post Office''.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Note:  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Form 10-K for the Year Ended December 31, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>  0001058631
<NAME> GENAD CONNECTOR CORP
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          23,979
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,730
<ALLOWANCES>                                       538
<INVENTORY>                                     42,915
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                96,205
<PP&E>                                          44,695
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,132
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 381,690
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           77,647
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     11,699
<COMMON>                                            53
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   381,690
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               271,683
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  290,102
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,791
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (47,210)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,127
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (58,337)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (58,337)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### The State of Ohio, Appellee, *v.*Williams, Appellant.

(No. 28896

Decided December 31, 1941.)

*Mr. Ralph J. Bartlett,*prosecuting attorney, *Mr. Forrest F. Smith*and *Mr. T. Vincent Martin,*for appellee.

*Mr. John A. Connor, Mr. Charles E. Connor, Jr.*and *Mr. John D. Connor,*for appellant.

It is ordered and adjudged that this appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason that no debatable constitutional question is involved.

*Appeal dismissed..*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Williams, Matthias, Hart, Zimmerman and Bettman, JJ., concur.