alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SEC Exhibit



Exhibit 10.2



NOTE
$10,000,000    May 18, 2016 
    Cincinnati, Ohio
FOR VALUE RECEIVED, PARK NATIONAL CORPORATION, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Ohio, hereby promises to pay to the order of U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION (the “Bank”) at its main office in Cincinnati, Ohio, in lawful money of the United States of America in Immediately Available Funds (as such term and each other capitalized term used herein are defined in the Credit Agreement hereinafter referred to) on the Termination Date the principal amount of TEN MILLION DOLLARS ($10,000,000) or, if less, the aggregate unpaid principal amount of all Revolving Loans made by the Bank under the Credit Agreement, and to pay interest (computed on the basis of actual days elapsed and a year of 360 days) in like funds on the unpaid principal amount hereof from time to time outstanding at the rates and times set forth in the Credit Agreement.
This note is the Note referred to in the Credit Agreement dated of even date herewith (as the same may hereafter be from time to time amended, restated or otherwise modified, the “Credit Agreement”) between the undersigned and the Bank.  The maturity of this note is subject to acceleration upon the terms provided in said Credit Agreement.  
In the event of default hereunder, the undersigned agrees to pay all costs and expenses of collection, including reasonable attorneys’ fees.  The undersigned waives demand, presentment, notice of nonpayment, protest, notice of protest and notice of dishonor.
THE VALIDITY, CONSTRUCTION AND ENFORCEABILITY OF THIS NOTE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY THE INTERNAL LAWS OF THE STATE OF OHIO WITHOUT GIVING EFFECT TO THE CONFLICT OF LAWS PRINCIPLES THEREOF, BUT GIVING EFFECT TO FEDERAL LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES APPLICABLE TO NATIONAL BANKS.
PARK NATIONAL CORPORATION
By:    /s/ Brady T. Burt    
Name:  Brady T. Burt 
Title:  Chief Financial Officer
| **CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (Parenthetical) - USD ($) $ in Millions** | 9 Months Ended |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------|
||
| **Statement of Cash Flows [Abstract]**                                                      |           |   |
| Discount and issuance costs                                                                 | $ 0.0          | $ 4.3 |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Debt Financing Costs And Discounts
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**joe_DebtFinancingCostsAndDiscounts**Namespace Prefix:**joe_**Data Type:**xbrli:monetaryItemType**Balance Type:**credit**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_StatementOfCashFlowsAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
# C_2009102EN.01001303.xml

| 1.5.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 102/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.5.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 102/13

---

Appeal brought on 24 February 2009 by Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA against the judgment delivered on 10 December 2008 in Case T-365/06 Bateaux mouches v OHIM

(Case C-78/09 P)

2009/C 102/22

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Compagnie des bateaux mouches SA (represented by: G. Barbaut, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Jean-Noël Castanet

Other parties to the proceedings:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare the appeal of Compagnie des bateaux mouches admissible; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare the appeal of Compagnie des bateaux mouches admissible;

| — | set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 10 December 2008 (Case T-365/06); |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities of 10 December 2008 (Case T-365/06);

| — | Order the Court of First Instance of the European Communities to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Court of First Instance of the European Communities to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

The appellant raises two pleas in support of its appeal.

By its first plea, the appellant alleges breach by the Court of First Instance of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark. (1) In that regard, it complains first that the Court of First Instance disregarded the intrinsic distinctive character which the mark had from the outset. Secondly, that distinctive character was even maintained and reinforced over time by the use made thereof by the appellant. The mark ‘BATEAUX MOUCHES’ is displayed on the boats used by the appellant — and by it alone — for tourist trips on the River Seine, the use of the terms ‘bateaux mouches’ on Internet search engines leads directly to the appellant’s website and the appellant has implemented an active policy of defending its mark against all abusive use.

1

By its second plea, the appellant complains that the Court of First Instance wrongly interpreted the criteria laid down by case-law enabling establishment of the acquisition by use of the distinctive character of the mark ‘BATEAUX MOUCHES’. The factors capable of demonstrating the mark’s distinctive character, such as the market share held by the mark, the intensity, geographical spread and duration of the use of that mark, the size of the investment made by the company to promote it, the proportion in the relevant fields of those who identify the product or service as coming from a particular undertaking because of the mark, should have been examined, as a whole and not merely in part, by the Court of First Instance.

---

(1)  OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           3,354
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          24,350
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            24,350
<LOANS>                                         69,362
<ALLOWANCE>                                        475
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 106,877
<DEPOSITS>                                      92,213
<SHORT-TERM>                                     2,820
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                705
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           309
<OTHER-SE>                                      10,830
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 106,877
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,522
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,232
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   143
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 5,897
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,925
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,015
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,882
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       20
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   1
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,908
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,302
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,005
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,005
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.03
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.10
<LOANS-NON>                                        362
<LOANS-PAST>                                       343
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   444
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       36
<RECOVERIES>                                        47
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  475
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               475
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2010346EN.01001901.xml

| 18.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 346/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/19

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 21 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos vyriausybės (Lithuania)) — Nidera Handelscompagnie BV v Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

(Case C-385/09) (1)

1

(Directive 2006/112/EC - Right of deduction of input VAT - National legislation excluding the right of deduction in respect of goods sold on before identification of the taxable person for VAT purposes)

2010/C 346/30

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Referring court

Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos vyriausybės

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Nidera Handelscompagnie BV

Applicant:

Defendant: Valstybinė mokesčių inspekcija prie Lietuvos Respublikos finansų ministerijos

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Mokestinių ginčų komisija prie Lietuvos Respublikos vyriausybės — Interpretation of Articles 167, 168(1)(a) and 178(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1) — National legislation reserving the right to deduct VAT to taxable persons registered for VAT in that Member State — Right to deduct VAT excluded for goods and services acquired by the taxable person before his registration for VAT in the Member State concerned if those goods and services have already been used for the purposes of the taxable person’s transactions

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding a taxable person for VAT purposes who meets the substantive conditions for the right of deduction, in accordance with the provisions of that directive, and who identifies himself as a taxable person for VAT purposes within a reasonable period following the completion of transactions giving rise to that right of deduction, from being denied the possibility of exercising that right by national legislation which prohibits the deduction of VAT paid on the purchase of goods if the taxpayer was not identified as a taxable person for VAT purposes before using those goods in his taxable activity.

---

(1)  OJ C 312, 19.12.2009.

1

---
Document Headings

                    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.                  

###### Farm Credit Administration

# AGENCY:

Farm Credit Administration.

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(3)), of the forthcoming special meeting of the Farm Credit Administration Board (Board).

# DATE AND TIME:

The special meeting of the Board will be held at the offices of the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on June 21, 2001, from 9 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes its business.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kelly Mikel Williams, Secretary to the Farm Credit Administration Board, (703) 883-4025, TDD (703) 883-4444.

# ADDRESSES:

Farm Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-5090.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This meeting of the Board will be open to the public (limited space available). In order to increase the accessibility to Board meetings, persons requiring assistance should make arrangements in advance. The matters to be considered at the meeting are:

## Open Session

A. Approval of Minutes

—May 10, 2001 (Open and Closed)

B. Reports

—FCS Building Association's Quarterly Report

—Report on Corporate Approvals

C. New Business—Other

—FY 2001 Budget Reprogramming

Dated: June 18, 2001.

Kelly Mikel Williams,

Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.

[FR Doc. 01-15605 Filed 6-18-01; 2:20 pm]

BILLING CODE 6705-01-P
# ORIGINAL

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 23-0212
IN RE THE PARENTING OF M.B., A minor child. UMBERTO FERRI,

Petitioner and Appellee. and ANNELIESE N. BROWN.

Respondent and Appellant. 

### JUN 2 0 2023 Bovvan u,-,anwood Clerk ot SL:p, erne Court State of Montana
ORDER

Appellant Anneliese N. Brown, via counsel, moves pursuant to M. R. App. P. 22(2)(a) for relieffrom an order ofthe Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, that denied her Motion to Stay Order Pending Appeal. Brown alleges that ifthe District Court's Order Re: Interim Parenting Plan is not stayed until this appeal is resolved, the child M.B., who is subject to the parenting plan, will be irreparably harmed. Appellee Umberto Ferri objects to Brown's motion for relief, arguing this Court should allow the District Court's denial ofstay to stand because Brown has not demonstrated the requisite good cause for this Court to provide relieffrom the District Court's denial ofstay. Under M. R. App. P. 22(1), a party must first move the district court for a stay ofits judgment or order pending appeal. M. R. App. P. 22(1)(d) requires that court to promptly enter a written order "and include in findings of fact and conclusions of law, or in a supporting rationale, the relevant facts and legal authority on which the district court's order is based." After the district court issues its ruling, a party may move for relief from thatorderunderM.R.App.P.22(2),which thisCourtwill grant only upon ademonstration ofgood cause, among other considerations. 06/20/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0212In this case, the District Court issued an Order Denying Motion to Stay Order

Pending Appeal and Deferring Reimbursement Request that summarily denied Brown's motion to stay without providing findings of fact, conclusions of law, or a supporting rationale as Rule 22(1)(d) requires. Without an explanation ofthe District Court's reasons for denying Brown's motion to stay, we cannot determine if good cause exists for relief from that order. ITISTHEREFORE ORDEREDthatthe DistrictCourt shall enteran amended order that complieswith M. R. App. P.22(1)(d) and shall transmit such ordertothis Court within 30 days ofthe date ofthis Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Appellant's motion for relief is HELD IN ABEYANCE pending this Court's receipt and consideration of the District Court's amended order. The Clerk is direCted to provide copies ofthis order to all counsel ofrecord, to the Clerk ofthe Flathead County District Court, and to the Hon. Robert B. Allison.

1 / 4 4N. DATED this 

### (--b day ofJune, 2023.



### Justices
II-01178

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Hazel Witte <hazelaw5@gmail.com>

Wednesday, December 1, 2010 7:11 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Hazel Witte

3330 NE Trudi Ct.

Bremerton, WA 98310
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                        JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                               15,225,385
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     15,805,924
<PP&E>                                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       15,805,924
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   524,525
<BONDS>                                       0
<COMMON>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                           15,281,399
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         15,805,924
<SALES>                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      1,345,547
<CGS>                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                      1,005,760
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         339,787
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     339,787
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                            339,787
<EPS-BASIC>                                32.54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                32.54


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                 ALPHATRADE.COM
                FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2008
                 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Katharine Johnston, am the Principal Financial Officer of AlphaTrade.com, a
Nevada corporation (the "Company"). I am delivering this certificate in
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year
ended December 31, 2008 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
("Annual Report").

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge,
the Annual Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: April 2, 2009



                           By: /s/ Katharine Johnston
                               ------------------------------------------------
                               Katharine Johnston
                               Vice-President, Business Operations and Director




























                                Exhibit 32.2 - 1
Freddie Lee FOUNTAIN, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 15-9301.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 3, 2016.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.