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


SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Washington, DC 20549





FORM 8-K





CURRENT REPORT


PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE


SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934





DATE OF REPORT (Date of earliest event reported): November 1, 2018





Commission File Number 0-17071





FIRST MERCHANTS CORPORATION


(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)








INDIANA35-1544218(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))





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 o





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. o








---










Item 7.01.  Regulation FD Disclosure .





The executive officers of First Merchants Corporation intend to use the material filed herewith, in whole or in part, in one or more meetings with investors and analysts. A copy of the investor presentation is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1.





First Merchants Corporation does not intend for this Item 7.01 or Exhibit 99.1 to be treated as "filed" for purposes of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or incorporated into its filings under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.





Item 9.01 . Financial Statements and Exhibits .








(d) (99.1) First Merchants Corporation Investor Presentation






































































































































---







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: November 1, 2018











FIRST MERCHANTS CORPORATION





By: /s/ Mark K. Hardwick


Mark K. Hardwick


Executive Vice President,


Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer
MEMORANDUM 

Date: August 21, 2015 

From: Anita Lee, EPA Region 9 

To: Proposed Federal Plan Requirements for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electric Utility Generating Units, 

Docket Id: EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0199 

Subject: Discussion of the Proposed Federal Plan Requirements during Teleconference between Navajo Nation 

and EPA on August 17, 2015 

_____________________________________________________________________________________ 

Summary: 

EPA Region 9 provided information on the Proposed Federal Plan Requirements for Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

from Electric Utility Generating Units during a teleconference between Navajo Nation and EPA on August 17, 

2015. The Proposed Federal Plan Requirements for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Electric Utility Generating 

Units was proposed on August 3, 2015. 

Attendees: 

External Stakeholders 

• Raju Bisht, Navajo Nation EPA 

• Eugenia Quintana, Navajo Nation EPA 

• April Quinn, Navajo Nation Department of Justice 

EPA 

• Colleen McKaughan, EPA Region 9 

• Ann Lyons, EPA Region 9 

• Ben Machol, EPA Region 9 

• Anita Lee, EPA Region 9 

• Nate Topham, OAQPS 

• Jeremy Mark, OAP 

• Jeremy Schreifels, OAP 

ATTACHMENT 

File titled “2015_0817 Attachment to Navajo Nation Technical Call.xlsx”
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Flyersrights.org, Department of Transportation Advisory Committee for 

Aviation Consumer Protection This document has attachments
Order entered November 1 3 , 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 18 - 01112 - CV DUAL COMMERCIAL, LLC D/B/A PGI COMMERCIA L LLC, Appellant V. CINCINNATI CASUALTY COMPAN Y, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC - 17 - 05795 - E



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s November 9, 2018 agreed motion for an extension of time to file a brief. We GRANT the motion to the extent that appellant shall file a brief by December 17, 2018

. /s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
`
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

I, John C. Francis, the Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) of Consolidation Services, Inc. certify that:

 

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Consolidation Services, Inc. for the period ended March 31, 2008;

 

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.

The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a) 

Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) 

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c) 

Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

 

5.

The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a)

All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)

Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: May 15, 2008

 

CONSOLIDATION SERVICES, INC.

 

/s/ John C. Francis

John C. Francis, Chief Financial

Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
`
#### SMITH v. KENDRICK.

No. 8906.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Nov. 30, 1932.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 4, 1933.

Birkhead, Beckmann & Stanard, of San Antonio, and Dougherty & Dougherty, of Bee-ville, for appellant.

Alex F. Cox, of Beeville, for appellee.

FLY, C. J.

Appellee sued appellant, alleging that they entered into a contract by which they agreed that appellee should seek to obtain oil and other minera! leases, to be taken in the name of appellant, and that appellant was to pay the expenses and when a lease was sold the amount realized over and above expenses was to be divided between the parties. Appellee alleged that leases had been sold and that part of the proceeds was $2,000, and he sought to recover that sum and to establish his right to one-half of any of the money obtained from any and all the leases procured by him. The cause was tried by jury and resulted in a verdict and judgment for $2,000 and one-half interest in the other leases. The evidence fully sustained the allegations of the petition and the verdict of the jury and judgment of the court.

Appellant admitted the purchase of the lease, and the jury having found the existence of the contract and its terms, it was not error to submit the question as to whether the lease was obtained and purchased' under the terms of the contract. That was purely a question of fact, and not of law, and the first proposition is without merit and is overruled.

The second proposition complains of the refusal of the *court to give two*special questions to the jury. The court stated in the first issue given all of the terms of the contract, which included every material point in controversy, and followed that issue with another which in substance submitted the question as to whether appellee procured the lease which was afterwards made to appellant. The two issues covered everything that was material, in the special issues sought to be submitted by appellant. The proposition is overruled.

The third proposition is technical and unfounded. The judgment was properly rendered for one-half of the leases remaining unsold. The testimony of appellee supports the *599judgment, which also followed the allegations in the petition.

There is no merit in this appeal, and the judgment is affirmed.
#### CAMPBELL v. STATE.

No. 18821.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 24, 1937.

Shropshire & Sanders, of Brady, for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, Judge.

Conviction for violating the liquor law; punishment, a fine of $100.

*216Appellant was charged, with selling to J. M. Allison whisky in Brown county, Tex., the same being a dry area. Nothing in the complaint or information shows when and how, or in what manner, Brown county became a dry area. The complaint and information are insufficient. See Whitmire v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 94 S.W.(2d) 742; Schmidt v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 94 S.W. (2d) 743.

The judgment is reversed, and the prosecution' ordered dismissed.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Veterans Affairs
 The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. ch. 10, that the Executive Committee of the VA Voluntary Service (VAVS) National Advisory Committee (NAC) will meet October 24-25, 2024 at the Disabled American Veterans Washington Headquarters located at 1300 I Street NW, Suite 400 West, Washington, DC 20005. The meeting sessions will begin and end as follows: Meeting date(s):
Meeting time(s):Thursday, October 24, 2024
9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST).Friday, October 25, 2024
9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. EST.
 The meeting sessions are open to the public. The Executive Committee, a working group of the VAVS NAC, comprised of 20 major Veteran, civic, and service organizations, advises the Secretary, through the Under Secretary for Health, on the coordination and promotion of volunteer activities and strategic partnerships within VA health care facilities, in the community, and on matters related to volunteerism and charitable giving. Agenda topics will include the NAC goals and objectives; review of minutes from the May 14-16, 2024 meeting; briefings from VA Chief of Staff, VA Advisory Committee Management Office, and VA Center for Development and Civic Engagement (CDCE); subcommittee reports; review of standard operating procedures; assessment of member organization data; innovation for optimal access to care; cross committee collaboration among Federal advisory committees; extending programming into communities; and any new business. The public may submit written statements for the Committee's review to Sabrina C. Clark, Ph.D., Designated Federal Officer, VA Center for Development and Civic Engagement (15CDCE), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, or email at 
                    *Sabrina.Clark@va.gov.*
                     Any member of the public wishing to attend the meeting or seeking additional information should contact Dr. Clark at 202-536-8603. Dated: September 25, 2024. Jelessa M. Burney, Federal Advisory Committee Management Officer.


[FR Doc. 2024-22403 Filed 9-30-24; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 323 Reported in Senate (RS)]

<DOC>

                                                       Calendar No. 257
114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 323

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 25, 2015

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                            October 8, 2015

               Reported by Mr. Johnson, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 55 Grasso Plaza in St. Louis, Missouri, as the ``Sgt. Amanda N. 
                         Pinson Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. SGT. AMANDA N. PINSON POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 55 Grasso Plaza in St. Louis, Missouri, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Sgt. Amanda N. Pinson 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. 
Amanda N. Pinson Post Office''.
                                                       Calendar No. 257

114th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 323

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 55 Grasso Plaza in St. Louis, Missouri, as the ``Sgt. Amanda N. 
                         Pinson Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            October 8, 2015

                       Reported without amendment
```
#### AUSTIN BRIDGE CO. v. SHAW.

No. 7983.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.

June 20, 1934.

Rehearing Denied July 11, 1934.

Collins, Jackson & Snodgrass, of San Angelo, for appellant.

Kerr & Gayer, of San Angelo, for appel-lee.

BAUGH, Justice.

Appellee sued appellant for damages, alleging breach by appellant of a contract with him, wherein he agreed to furnish to appellant, at $2.50 per yard, all sand and gravel needed by appellant in the construction of bridges and culverts on a state highway between Ballinger and Talpa. The case was submitted to a jury on special issues, in answer to which they found;

(1) That one M. B. Moore agreed with ap-pellee Shaw to buy from him said sand and gravel.

(2) That Moore was authorized by appellant to buy same from Shaw.

(3) That appellant at its Dallas office accepted the $2.50 bid of Shaw on said sand •and gravel.

Issues Nos. 4, 5, and 6 relate to the measure of damages, and no complaint is made as to them. Based upon such findings, the court rendered judgment for appellee for $2,250; hence this appeal.

While several propositions are made they present but two contentions, both of which relate to special issue No. 3. First is that there was no evidence that Shaw’s bid of $2.50 per yard was accepted at the Dallas office; and, second, that the evidence was conflicting as to what was the amount of Shaw’s bid, and that therefore a jury finding as to what was his bid was necessary; that is, that the court could not assume, as question No. 3 did assume, that Shaw submitted a $2.50 bid.

We find no merit in either of these contentions. The contract sued upon was alleged to have been made with Moore, as agent of appellant. The jury found that such contract was so made. While the evidence was conflicting, the jury’s findings thereon concludes that matter here. In response to special issue 2, the jury found that Moore was authorized by appellant to make said contract. The evidence was clearly sufficient to sustain that finding, and no complaint is made of it in this court. If Moore was authorized to bind his principal and made such contract, based upon Shaw’s bid to him,.it was immaterial whether such bid-was accepted at Dallas or not.

*548In so far as tiie testimony as to the amount of Shaw’s bid is concerned, it showed several bids made, some to the Dallas office of appellant, and some to Moore orally, which were communicated to the Dallas office. These bids, however, merely constituted a part of the negotiations between Shaw and Moore prior to the making of the contract. All of them were higher than the $2.50 per yard. The only bid, however, on which the contract was predicated, and the one which Shaw testified that Moore accepted, and upon which the contract was made, it being the lowest bid, was that for $2.50 per yard. If he had any contract at all, it was on that basis. The other bids therefore were immaterial, and no jury finding as to what other bids were made was necessary. There was no error therefore in submitting issue No. 3 in the form submitted.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 10.2**Confidential Correspondence**April 13, 2007[NAME][ADDRESS]Dear [FIRST NAME]:As you know, Universal Compression Holdings, Inc. (the “Company” or “Universal”) has signed amerger agreement with Hanover Compressor Company. Under the terms of the merger agreement, bothcompanies will be combined in a merger of equals to create a new company. While the merger isstill subject to regulatory and shareholder approval, we remain optimistic that these approvalswill be granted and the merger will close some time in the third quarter of 2007.As a key employee, your participation in Universal’s continuing operations during this process willbe critical to enable Universal to successfully consummate the merger. As a result we are pleasedto provide you with a “Retention Bonus” in the amount of $XXXX to encourage you to stay withUniversal through your “Key Date.” For these purposes, your Key Date will be the later of 6 monthsafter the closing date of the merger or April 30, 2008. If you remain with the Company or itssuccessor through your Key Date, the Retention Bonus will be paid to you in a single lump sumwithin 10 days after the Key Date. If you terminate your employment with the Company or itssuccessor prior to the Key Date, you will forfeit your right to receive the Retention Bonus. Inthe event that your employment is terminated by the Company or its successor for any reason otherthan cause, you will be entitled to an accelerated payment of your Retention Bonus within 10 daysof such event. All Retention Bonus payments are subject to the terms, conditions and contingenciescontained in the Universal Compression Holdings, Inc. Retention Bonus Plan (the “Retention Plan”),a copy of which is included with this letter.It is important that your Retention Bonus information be kept confidential, as it only pertains toyou. If you have any questions regarding this letter or the Retention Plan, please direct thosequestions to your Human Resources representative.This letter is not a contract of employment or an agreement of employment for a definite term.Except as otherwise required by applicable law, your employment remains terminable at will byeither party, at any time and for any reason or no reason. This letter may not be amended ormodified except through a written amendment signed by the Company or its successor and you. Thisletter is governed by and subject to the terms of the Retention Plan. In the event there aredifferences between the terms of this letter and the Retention Plan, please understand that theRetention Plan document controls.If you understand and agree to the above, please sign below and return to Rick Klein – Director ofHuman Resources. With your help, we can make this merger a success. We look forward to workingwith you during this exciting time.Sincerely,Executive OfficerAccepted and Agreed: