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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, DC 20549

 

FORM 8-K CURRENT REPORTPURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THESECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 DATE OF REPORT (Date of earliest event reported): December 28, 2022FIRST MERCHANTS CORPORATION(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)Indiana(State or other jurisdiction of incorporation)001-4134235-1544218(Commission File Number)(IRS Employer Identification No.)200 East Jackson StreetP.O. Box 792Muncie, IN47305-2814(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)Title of Each ClassTrading Symbol(s)Name of each exchange on which registeredCommon Stock, $0.125 stated value per shareFRMEThe Nasdaq Stock Market LLCDepositary Shares, each representing a 1/100th interest in a share of Non-Cumulative Perpetual Preferred Stock, Series AFRMEPThe Nasdaq Stock Market LLC 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))Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an emerging growth company as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act of 1933 (§230.405 of this chapter) or Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (§240.12b-2 of this chapter). Emerging growth company ☐If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐ITEM 8.01 OTHER EVENTSFirst Merchants Bank (the “Bank”), the wholly-owned banking subsidiary of First Merchants Corporation, has been operating under a Settlement Agreement and Agreed Order (the “Settlement Agreement”) with the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) since August 8, 2019.  The Settlement Agreement included a four year term but was able to be terminated sooner (i.e., after three years) if the Bank had met or exceeded all of the terms of the Settlement Agreement.  On December 28, 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana approved a joint request by the Bank and the DOJ to terminate the Settlement Agreement effective immediately.  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/ Michele M. Kawiecki                        Michele M. KawieckiExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)Dated: January 3, 2023
# C_2021431EN.01002701.xml

| 25.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 431/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 431/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 8 September 2021 — Spain v Commission

(Case T-355/18) (1)

(Rules on languages - Notices of open competition for the recruitment of administrators in the field of public health and food safety - Restriction of the choice of language 2 to four languages - Regulation No 1 - Article 1d(1), Article 27 and Article 28(f) of the Staff Regulations - Discrimination based on language - Interests of the service - Proportionality)

(2021/C 431/28)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Kingdom of Spain (represented by: S. Centeno Huerta and L. Aguilera Ruiz, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. Ruiz García, L. Vernier, D. Milanowska, I. Galindo Martín and T. Lilamand, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of notices of open competition EPSO/AD/340/18 to draw up a reserve list in the field of health and food safety (audit, inspection and evaluation) and EPSO/AD/341/18 to draw up a reserve list in the field of food safety (policy and legislation) (OJ 2018 C 97 A, p. 1).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls notices of open competition EPSO/AD/340/18 to draw up a reserve list in the field of health and food safety (audit, inspection and evaluation) and EPSO/AD/341/18 to draw up a reserve list in the field of food safety (policy and legislation); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls notices of open competition EPSO/AD/340/18 to draw up a reserve list in the field of health and food safety (audit, inspection and evaluation) and EPSO/AD/341/18 to draw up a reserve list in the field of food safety (policy and legislation);

| 2. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Kingdom of Spain. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Kingdom of Spain.

---

(1)  OJ C 285, 13.8.2018.

---
Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT In
connection with the quarterly report of New Century Equity Holdings Corp. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2004, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, David P.
Tusa, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge that: (1)
  
  The Form
  10-Q report for the three months ended March 31, 2004, filed with the
  Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2004, 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 Form 10-Q report for the three months ended
  March 31, 2004 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
  condition and results of operations of New Century Equity Holdings Corp.  By:
  /s/
  DAVID P. TUSA
  Date:  May
  13, 2004David P.
  Tusa
  Executive Vice President,
  Chief Financial Officer and
  Corporate Secretary
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                OF

                   CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                                OF

                    PARKER-LEVITT CORPORATION
                    (Pursuant to Section 242)

          PARKER-LEVITT CORPORATION (the "Corporation"), a corporation
organized and existing under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of
the State of Delaware, DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

          FIRST:  That the Board of Directors of the Corporation at a meeting
duly held, adopted resolutions proposing and declaring advisable the following
amendments to the Certificate of Incorporation of said Corporation:

         RESOLVED, that the Certificate of Incorporation of this corporation
be amended by amending the Article thereof numbered "FIRST" so that, as
amended said Article shall be and read as follows:

          "The name of the corporation is COMMERCIAL PROPERTY CORPORATION"

          SECOND: That said amendments have been approved and authorized by
the vote of in excess of a majority of the holders of all the issued and
outstanding stock of the Corporation entitled to vote at the annual meeting of
stockholders of said Corporation.

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, said PARKER-LEVITT CORPORATION has caused its
corporate seal to be hereunto affixed and this certificate to be signed by
Cosmo J. Caterino, its President, and Robert J. Patten, its Secretary, this
20th day of June 1977.

                         PARKER-LEVITT CORPORATION


                             By/s/Cosmo J. Caterino
                              President


                              /s/Robert J. Patten
                   ATTEST:    Secretary


STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS)
                      )  SS.:
COUNTY OF WORCHESTER  )

     BE IT REMEMBERED, that on this 20th day of June, 1977, personally
came before me a Notary Public in and for the County and State aforesaid,
Cosmo J. Caterino, President, and Robert J. Patten, Secretary of Parker-Levitt
Corporation, a corporation of the State of Delaware, the corporation described
in and which executed the foregoing certificate, known to me personally to be
such, and they, the said Cosmo J. Caterino as such President and Robert J.
Patten as such Secretary duly executed said certificate before me and
acknowledged the said certificate to be their act and deed and the act and
deed of said Corporation; that the signatures of said President and of the
Secretary of said corporation to said foregoing certificate are in the
handwriting of the said President and Secretary of said Corporation
respectively; that the seal affixed to said certificate is the common or
corporate seal of said Corporation; that the facts stated in the foregoing
certificate are true; and that the act of sealing, executing, acknowledging
and delivering said certificate was duly authorized by the Board of Directors
and Stockholders of said Corporation.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal of office the
day and year aforesaid.

                              /s/Shirley J. Federline
                         Notary Public

                         My commission expires 5/30/80
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-6273

ROBERT E. BUTLER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusRICHARD YOUNG; WARDEN HARVEY; RANDOLPH PHILLIPS, Assistant Warden of Programs; OFFICER KISER; OFFICER JOHNSON; OFFICER BALDWIN, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-65-7) Submitted: April 27, 2000 Decided: May 4, 2000Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert E. Butler, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Robert E. Butler, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find that Butler failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Accordingly, we affirm the dismissal on the reasoning of the district court. See Butler v. Young , No. CA-00-65-7 (W.D. Va. Feb. 2, 2000). 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
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
    /s/ Robert L. ThompsonRobert L. ThompsonChief Accounting Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 184 (Monday, September 23, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 77467]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-21684]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 74

[Docket No. FDA-2024-C-4339]


DSM Biomedical; Filing of Color Additive Petition

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notification of petition.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing 
that we have filed a petition, submitted by DSM Biomedical, proposing 
that the color additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe 
use of phthalocyanine green to color surgical sutures made of ultra-
high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) for use in general surgery, 
at a concentration of no more than 0.5 percent by weight of the suture.

DATES: The color additive petition was filed on August 15, 2024.

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to read background documents or 
comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the 
docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document into 
the ``Search'' box and follow the prompts, and/or go to the Dockets 
Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen DiFranco, Center for Food 
Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus 
Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-2710.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
Act (section 721(d)(1) (21 U.S.C. 379e(d)(1))), we are giving notice 
that we have filed a color additive petition (CAP 4C0335), submitted by 
DSM Biomedical, 735 Pennsylvania Dr., Exton, PA 19341. The petition 
proposes to amend the color additive regulations in 21 CFR part 74, 
``Listing of Color Additives Subject to Certification,'' to provide for 
the safe use of phthalocyanine green to color surgical sutures made of 
UHMWPE for use in general surgery, at a concentration of no more than 
0.5 percent by weight of the suture.
    The petitioner claims that this action is categorically excluded 
under 21 CFR 25.32(l) because the substance is used in sutures. If FDA 
determines a categorical exclusion applies, neither an environmental 
assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. If FDA 
determines a categorical exclusion does not apply, we will request an 
environmental assessment and make it available for public inspection.

    Dated: September 18, 2024.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-21684 Filed 9-20-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
#### STRAYLEY v. STATE.

No. 13878.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 7, 1931.

Rehearing Denied March 18, 1931.

McGaugh & Darroch, of Brownwood, for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for possessing intoxicating liquor for purposes of sale; punishment, two years in the penitentiary.

The facts .support the verdict. Same show that upon permission officers searched appellant’s car and found therein three half-gallon jars of Whisky. Appellant testified that he had same for his own personal use and for medicine for his wife. These theories were pertinently submitted and solved by the jury adversely to appellant’s contention.

We find in the record two bills of exception each complaining of argument made in behalf of the state. The first complaint is of the argument to the effect that appellant did not need to drive from Waco to San Saba in order to get liquor for his own use or for medical purposes, that there were any number of bootleggers in the city of Waco from whom he could buy liquor for his own use, and, if he wanted liquor for his wife’s use, he could get it from the doctors in Waco and would not be getting rot gut liquor from bootleggers in San Saba county. This was objected to upon the ground that there was no evidence in the record warranting any argument that appellant made the trip from Waco to San Saba for the purpose of purchasing liquor, and there was no evidence that the defendant could buy liquor from any number of bootleggers in Waco, or that he could *163obtain prescription liquor in Waco. We find nothing in the bill of exceptions in any wise certifying to the correctness of the facts relied upon in the objections made. For aught the bill shows, the testimony in the case may have been entirely in accord with the claims made by the state’s attorney in his argument. We are unable to see the analogy between this argument and that condemned in Tubb v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 25 S.W.(2d) 339, 340. The argument objected to in the Tubb Case appeared to be an entire misstatement of the law and in a manner wholly contrary to that stated by the court in his charge to the jury. In the case before us, the discussion was as to facts, and,, as observed, there is no showing as to these facts.

The argument complained of in the second bill of exceptions, if we understand same, consisted only of an expression of the conclusion of the state’s attorney that the jury would have a right to convict upon proof of possession of more than a quart of intoxicating liquor, even though the accused should have claimed that he possessed same for his own use or for medicine. We see no reason for doubting the correctness of such argument.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.
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 the Quarterly Report of American Jianye Greentech Holdings, Ltd.  (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Haipeng Wang, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:





(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 result of operations of the Company.





Date:  August 18, 2011
/s/Haipeng WangName:  Haipeng WangTitle:  President(Principal Executive Officer)





This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
|   | (1) | The      Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended      September 30, 2009 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/      Zou Dejun           |   |   |        |   |
|------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| Zou      Dejun               |   |   |   |   |
| Chief      Executive Officer |   |   |   |   |

| /s/      Jenny Y. Liu        |   |   |        |   |
|------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| Jenny      Y. Liu            |   |   |   |   |
| Chief      Financial Officer |   |   |   |   |

----
#### MAYHALL v. STATE.

No. 17487.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 10, 1935.

J. C. Russell, of Sinton, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER,' Judge.

The appellant was tried and convicted of the offense of wife desertion, and his punishment was assessed at confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of one year.

There is not a bill of exception in the record. The only question presented for review is the insufficiency of the testimony to .sustain the conviction. The testimony adduced upon the trial, briefly stated, shows that at the time of the trial the appellant had been married to his present wife approximately three years. He and his wife lived in a small house consisting of two small rooms; they had one bed which they occupied until some time in the fall of 1933, when the appellant moved the bed into the back room in which he slept and cooked, but would not permit his wife to occupy the bed with him. ‘Consequently, she had to sleep on the floor in the larger room. On November 15, 1933, he gave her $34, which she used in purchasing groceries for herself, and which lasted for a period of seven months. Since said time he did not give her any money or groceries. The only clothes whieh he ever purchased for her were two cotton dresses which cost 98 cents each, one pair of shoes, and two pair of hose. Her kinfolks gave her all of her other clothes. The appellant was a blacksmith by trade, and he owned a small shop and a very few tools, and he endeavored to make a living by the use of his trade. It appears from the testimony that some days he would make 50 cents to a dollar and some days he would not make anything; that he was 59 years old and suffered from rheumatism 1⁄8 his arms, which Incapacitated him from doing a real day’s work; that he had no property except his cabin, shop, and a few tools; - that he was not financially able to supply himself with the necessary coal required in pursuit of his occupation; that he would buy one dollar’s worth of coal' at a time and frequently had to borrow the dollar. The testimony further showed that the appellant’s wife was a delicate woman weighing approximately 80 pounds, and that at the time of the trial she appeared emaciated, which indicated that she had been undernourished.

The court in his charge adequately instructed the jury upon the law applicable to the facts proven, and it occurs to us that from the testimony adduced the jury was justified in concluding that the appellant was guilty as charged.

No error appearing in the record, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court..
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 322 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 322

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 16105 Swingley Ridge Road in Chesterfield, Missouri, as the ``Sgt. 
                    Zachary M. Fisher Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. SGT. ZACHARY M. FISHER POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 16105 Swingley Ridge Road in Chesterfield, Missouri, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Sgt. Zachary M. Fisher 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 ``Sgt. 
Zachary M. Fisher Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 24, 2015.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
114th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 322

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 16105 Swingley Ridge Road in Chesterfield, Missouri, as the ``Sgt. 
                    Zachary M. Fisher Post Office''.
```