alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                   EXHIBIT 21

                  LANCASTER COLONY CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES

                     SIGNIFICANT SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                                                         STATE OF
                         NAME                                                       SEGMENT           INCORPORATION
                         ----                                                       -------           -------------
<S>                                                                        <C>                        <C>
CP&L, Inc.*...............................................................     Glassware & Candles        Indiana
Dee Zee, Inc..............................................................         Automotive              Ohio
E. O. Brody Company.......................................................     Glassware & Candles         Ohio
Fostoria Glass, LLC.......................................................     Glassware & Candles         Ohio
Indiana Glass Company.....................................................     Glassware & Candles        Indiana
Jackson Plastics Operations, Inc.*........................................         Automotive              Ohio
Koneta, Inc.*.............................................................         Automotive              Ohio
LaGrange Molded Products, Inc.............................................         Automotive            Delaware
Lancaster Colony Commercial Products, Inc.................................     Glassware & Candles         Ohio
Lancaster Glass Corporation...............................................     Glassware & Candles         Ohio
T. Marzetti Company.......................................................       Specialty Foods           Ohio
T. Marzetti Company LLC*..................................................       Specialty Foods         Kentucky
Marzetti Frozen Pasta, Inc. (FKA Reames Foods, Inc.)*.....................       Specialty Foods           Iowa
New York Frozen Foods, Inc.*..............................................       Specialty Foods           Ohio
Pretty Products, Inc......................................................         Automotive              Ohio
Sister Schubert's Homemade Rolls, Inc.*...................................       Specialty Foods          Alabama
The Quality Bakery Company, Inc.*.........................................       Specialty Foods           Ohio
Waycross Molded Products, Inc.............................................         Automotive              Ohio

</TABLE>


All subsidiaries conduct their business under the names shown.

* Indicates indirect subsidiary
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 21




                THE LACLEDE GROUP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                     SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



                                                        PERCENT OF
                                                       VOTING STOCK
                                                           OWNED
                                                       ------------



Subsidiaries of The Laclede Group, Inc. (Parent)

   Laclede Gas Company                                      100%
   Laclede Pipeline Company                                 100%
   Laclede Investment LLC*                                  100%
   Laclede Development Company**                            100%

<FN>
  *Subsidiary Company of Laclede Investment LLC
       Laclede Energy Resources, Inc.                       100%
   Subsidiary Company of Laclede Energy Resources, Inc.
       Laclede Gas Family Services, Inc.                    100%
 **Subsidiary Company of Laclede Development Company
       Laclede Venture Corp.                                100%


All of the above corporations have been organized under the laws of the
State of Missouri.
# EUR-Lex - 31999Y0528(02) - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31999Y0528(02)

**Council Act of 29 April 1999 appointing the Director and Deputy Directors of Europol **

*
Official Journal C 149 , 28/05/1999 P. 0018 - 0018 *

COUNCIL ACT

of 29 April 1999

appointing the Director and Deputy Directors of Europol

(1999/C 149/03)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Convention based on Article K.3 of the Treaty on the European Union, on the etablishment of a European Police Office (Europol Convention)(1), and in particular Article 29 thereof,

Having regard to the opinion of the Management Board,

Whereas it is for the Council, acting unanimously, to appoint the Director and Deputy Directors of Europol;

Taking into account the agreement reached at the meeting of the Council of 3 and 4 December 1998,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

As from the moment to the taking-up of activities of Europol, Mr Jürgen Storbeck is appointed Director of Europol for a period of five years.

Article 2

1. As from the moment of the taking-up of activities of Europol, Mr Willy Bruggeman is appointed as Deputy Director of Europol for a period of four years.

2. As from the moment of the taking-up of activities of Europol, Mr Gilles Leclair is appointed as Deputy Director of Europol for a period of four years.

3. As from the moment of the taking-up of activities of Europol, Mr Emanuele Marotta is appointed as Deputy Director of Europol for a period of three years.

4. As from the moment of the taking-up of activities of Europol, Mr Georges Rauchs is appointed as Deputy Director of Europol for a period of three years.

5. As from the moment of the taking-up of activities of Europol, Mr David Lawrence Valls-Russell is appointed as Deputy Director of Europol for a period of four years.

Article 3

This decision shall enter into force on the day following its adoption by the Council.

It shall be published in the Official Journal.

Done at Luxembourg, 29 April 1999.

For the Council

The President

W. MÜLLER

(1) OJ C 316, 27.11.1995, p. 1.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access to publicationsin the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging and locatorservices, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications (CGP). Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event that publicationsare no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:Monitoring fine-sediment volume in the Colorado River ecosystem, Arizona:construction and analysis of digital elevation models**
 
Document | Maps| FIST Surfaces | FIST Uncertainty Surfaces
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.76:2014-1052
Item Number:0624-H (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000936792
 
April 2, 2018
----

----

III Paziņojumi

Padome

----

PAZIŅOJUMS PAR VAKANCI

Eiropas aizsardzības aģentūra

Direktori

(2004/C 194 A/01)

Eiropas Aizsardzības aģentūra paredz pieņemt darbā četrus direktorus saviem četriem direktorātiem:

Sīkāka informācija (angļu valodā) un pieteikuma veidlapas atrodamas Padomes tīkla vietnē ar adresi: http://ue.eu.int (kontakti/darba piedāvājumi).

Pēdējais pieteikumu iesniegšanas datums: 2004. gada 3. septembris (pasta zīmogs).

----

Eiropas Rasisma un ksenofobijas uzraudzības centrs

----

AICINĀJUMS PIETEIKTIES HOUA-A-2004

(2004/C 194 A/02)

Eiropas Rasisma un ksenofobijas uzraudzības centrs (EUMC) meklē kandidātus ar mērķi ieņemt noteiktus amatus. Sīkāka informācija par šiem darba piedāvājumiem, par centra uzdevumiem un par procedūru, saskaņā ar kuru iesniedzams pieteikums ir publicēta EUMC tikla vietnē ar šādu adresi: http://eumc.eu.int.

----
#### STATE OF FLORIDA v THE HONORABLE RICHARD LAZZARA and FARMER WADDLE

Case Nos. 87-11196 and 87-12098 (Lower Court Case No. 86-14434)

Thirteenth Judicial Circuit, Hillsborough County

February 22, 1991

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Office of the State Attorney, for appellant.

George DuFour, Esquire, for appellee.

*14OPINION OF THE COURT

SUSAN C. BUCKLEW, Circuit Judge.

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT Hillsborough County Florida

The Honorable Robert Bonanno, Judge Petition for Writ of Prohibition and Writ of Common Law Certiorari The Honorable Richard Lazzara

*OPINION*

Befendant/Appellee, Farmer Waddle was charged by Notice to Appear with Exhibiting Obscene Material. The trial court, The Honorable James Arnold, entered an order compelling discovery finding that a “Notice to Appear was not designed nor intended for complex misdemeanor criminal offenses” such as the instant case, and that “Rule 3.125(k) does not preclude the defense from being able to depose the listed state’s witness” in such complex misdemeanor cases. About seven months later the trial court, The Honorable Richard Lazzara, entered an order denying the state’s Motion to Quash Subpoena for Depositions. The state filed a Petition for Writ of Prohibition and Writ for Common Law Certiorari, on August 31, 1987, and on September 17, 1987 the trial court, The Honorable Robert Bonanno, dismissed the case, apparently for failure to abide by the court’s order to compel discovery. The state then appealed the dismissal.

The Petition for a Writ of Prohibition is moot, the trial court, The Honorable Robert Bonanno, having dismissed the case before the appellate court ruled on the Writ. However, the Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Appeal were consolidated for purposes of appeal.

The reviewing court does not believe the trial court, The Honorable Richard Lazzara, erred in denying the state’s Motion to Quash Subpoena for Deposition. Even though Rule 3.125(k) does not provide for depositions in cases where the state has charged a defendant by a Notice to Appear, the court should have inherent authority to order depositions in those few cases where the issues are complicated to prevent unfair prejudice to the defendant. This is such a case, the charge resulting from the execution of a search warrant. This opinion is not intended to conflict with the opinion of the court in the *State of Florida v Salma Khan*87-163, Division A.

The reviewing court holds that the trial court, The Honorable Richard Lazzara, did not abuse its discretion and did not depart from the essential requirements of law in denying the Motion to Quash.

*15In addition, the trial court’s, The Honorable Robert Bonanno, order dismissing the case is affirmed.

DONE AND ORDERED in Hillsborough County, Florida, this 22nd day of February, 1991.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 41694

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

WILLIAM RYAN McDOWELL,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 690

Filed: August 22, 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Jefferson County. Hon. Gregory W. Moeller, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of two and one-half years, for delivery of a controlled 

substance, affirmed.

Sean P. Bartholick of Bartholick Law, PLLC, Rexburg, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

William Ryan McDowell pled guilty to delivery of a controlled substance. I.C. § 37-

2732(a)(1)(B). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district 

court sentenced McDowell to a unified term of five years, with a minimum period of 

confinement of two and one-half years. McDowell appeals.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 
the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, McDowell’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
#### N Y C Rd Co v P U C

Ohio Supreme Court

No 21981.

Decided Feb. 5, 1930

Marshall, CJ., Kinkade, Robinson, Jones, Matthias and Day, JJ., concur.
#### David C. Murray, Appellant, *vs.*Marcus S. Johnson, Respondent.

This was an Appeal to the Supreme Court from an order of the District Court for the County of Ramsey.

*223Tbe action was to recover tbe amount of a promissory note, dated March 28, 1854, made by the Defendant below, and payable one day after date to the order of the Plaintiff, with interest.

An affidavit for a "Warrant of Attachment was made by one of the Plaintiff’s Attorneys, which affidavit set forth that the Defendant was “ about to depart for the Territory of Kansas, “ as soon as he can get away.” That it was a matter of general belief that the Defendant owned one-third of a Saloon in Saint Paul, the assets of which amounted to $1400, but that the Defendant had stated to Affiant that he was not worth a dollar in the world.

The warrant was issued on the 2'Ttib. of October, 1854. On the 6th day of November following, the Defendant appeared and moved to vacate and set aside the Warrant,

*Because,*the Bond filed by the Plaintiff was insufficient in this, that it is a Bond, and not an undertaking, as required by law; and

*Because,*the affidavit is insufficient and inconsistent, and does not state facts showing or tending to show that the Defendant “ owns the one-third interest of a certain Saloon in Saint Paul”; and

*Becmm,*said affidavit does not state any facts showing or tending to show that the Defendant “ intends to depart for the *“*Territory of Kansas as soon as he can get away,” or that he is about to assign, secrete or dispose of his property, with intent to delay or defraud his creditors ; and

*Because,*the said affidavit does not show an existing cause of action against the Defendant, or the amount of the claim of the Plaintiff against him.

Upon argument of this motion, the District Court ordered that the Warrant and all proceedings therein, be vacated and set aside, with costs.

Prom which order the Plaintiff appealed to this Court.

Nejvell *&*Tompkins, Counsel for Appellant.

Ames & Yan Etten, Counsel for Despondent.

*224There being no appearance in the Supreme Court, on behalf of the Appellant, the order of the District Court was affirmed, with costs.
#### § 402.9 Maintenance and retention of records.

Every person required to file any report under this part shall maintain records on the matters required to be reported which will provide in sufficient detail the necessary basic information and data from which the documents filed with the Office of Labor-Management Standards may be verified, explained or clarified, and checked for accuracy and completeness, and shall include vouchers, worksheets, receipts, and applicable resolutions, and shall keep such records available for examination for a period of not less than five years after the filing of the documents based on the information which they contain.
71°15'

71°15'

71°22'30"

71°22'30"

42°7'30" 42°7'30"

42°0' 42°0'

SCALE 1:24,000

WRENTHAM QUADRANGLE

1 0.5 0 1 MILES

1 0.5 0 1 KILOMETERS

(MEDFIELD)

(ATTLEBORO)

(FRA

N

KLIN)

(MA

N

S

FIELD)

Stone, B.D., Stone, J.R., and DiGiacomo-Cohen, M.L., 2008, Surficial

geologic map of the Worcester North-Oxford-Wrentham-Attleboro

nine-quadrangle area in south-central Massachusetts: U.S. Geological

Survey Open-File Report 2006-1260-D, one CD-ROM.

Available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1260/D.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS

OFFICE OF THE STATE GEOLOGIST

AND EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS

Prepared in cooperation with the OPEN-FILE REPORT 2006-1260-D

Explanatory pamphlet accompanies map

Surficial Geologic Map of the Wrentham Quadrangle, Massachusetts

Compiled by

Byron D. Stone, Janet R. Stone, and Mary L. DiGiacomo-Cohen

2008

Base from U.S. Geological Survey, 1964.

Map was scanned, processed, georeferenced,

rectified, and cropped by the Office of the

Massachusetts State Geologist. Image available online at:

http://www.geo.umass.edu/stategeologist/frame_maps.htm

Geology mapped by B.D. Stone in 1982.

Some postglacial units mapped using

2005 orthophoto images.

CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET

(SHEET 7 of 8)
----

Action brought on 24 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities against the French Republic

(Case C-263/04)

(2004/C 201/30)

An action against the French Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 24 June 2004 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by E. Gippini Fournier and K. Mojzesowicz, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

Article 9 of Directive 2002/77/EC requires the Member States to supply the Commission, by not later than 24 July 2003, with such information as to allow it to confirm that the provisions of that directive have been complied with.

----

(1)  Commission Directive 2002/77/EC of 16 September 2002 on competition in markets for electronic communications networks and services (OJ 2002 L 249, p. 21).

----
#### Dime Savings Bank of Brooklyn, Appellant, *v.*Beckey Altman, Respondent, Impleaded with Others.

Submitted September 27, 1937;

decided October 5, 1937.

Motion for reargument denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. (See 275 N. Y. 62.)
#### § 2700.42 Contents of complaint.

A discrimination complaint shall include a short and plain statement of the facts, setting forth the alleged discharge, discrimination or interference, and a statement of the relief requested.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

133917 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 133917 

 COA: 273214 

Oakland CC: 2006-008454-AR 

MARVIN DELAINE ROBINSON, 43rd DC: 06HP0065-FY 

Defendant-Appellant, 

and 

AISHIA MONIQUE NOBLE, 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 3, 2007 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0830 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 10, 2007 

 Clerk
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Form S-8 Nos. 333-49580, 333-73147, 333-111038and 333-108696 and Form S-3 No. 333-99429 and related Prospectus) of our reports dated June 25, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Korn/Ferry International, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internalcontrol over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Korn/Ferry International included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended April 30, 2005. 

 

 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

 

Los Angeles, California 

July 13, 2005
#### § 402.13 OMB control number.

The collecting of information requirements in this part have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget and assigned OMB control number 1245-0003.

[59 FR 15115, Mar. 31, 1994, as amended at 63 FR 33779, June 19, 1998; 78 FR 8024, Feb. 5, 2013]
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

________________ _____________
No. 1D17-4274

________________ _____________
L AURIE M. C OSTELLO , Appellant,

v.

C ITY OF A RCHER , F LORIDA , and F LORIDA C ROSSROADS I NDUSTRIAL Z ONE , LLC,

Appellees.

________________ _____________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County. Donna M. Keim, Judge.

February 8, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed. See Malley v. Clay Coun ty Zoning Comm'n , 225 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969); see also § 166.041(7), Fla. Stat. (2012).

L EWIS , M AKAR , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur.2 ________________ _____________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fl a. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

________________ _____________

Joseph W. Little, Gain esville, for Appellant.

S. Scott Walker, Courtney Wilson Johnson, and Patrice Boyes, Gainesville, for Appellees.
#### In the Matter of John Tylec, Respondent, v James Iwanicki, Appellant, et al., Respondents.

[706 NYS2d 537]

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to Election Law § 16-106 to validate an improperly placed write-in vote in favor of petitioner and find him the winner of the Independence Party primary election for the office of County Legislator, 9th District, County of Niagara. Supreme Court erred in granting the petition. Election Law § 8-308 (3) “mandates, in clear and unequivocal terms, that ‘[a] write-in ballot must be cast in its appropriate place on the machine, or it shall be void and not counted’ ” *(Matter of Haynie v Mahoney,*48 NY2d 718, 719; *see, Matter of Brownson v Andrews,*90 NY2d 949). The challenged ballot was cast in column four rather than column three, which was the designated column for the office of County Legislator. Column four was a blank column, and column five was the designated column for the office of Mayor of Tonawanda. We reject petitioner’s contention that the improperly placed write-in vote was the result of a voting machine malfunction. The court properly found that the voting machine did not malfunction. Petitioner has failed, therefore, to distinguish this case from *Matter of Brownson v Andrews (supra).*The improperly placed write-in vote is void *887and cannot be counted. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Niagara County, Joslin, J. — Election Law.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Hayes, Wisner and Scudder, JJ.
§ 37.31 Where must the notice required by §§ 37.29 and 37.30 be published? ( a ) At a minimum, the notice required by §§ 37.29 and 37.30 must be: ( 1 ) Posted prominently, in reasonable numbers and places;
( 2 ) Disseminated in internal memoranda and other written or electronic communications;
( 3 ) Included in handbooks or manuals; and
( 4 ) Made available to each participant, and made part of each participant's file.
( b ) The notice must be provided in appropriate formats to individuals with visual impairments. Where notice has been given in an alternate format to a participant with a visual impairment, a record that such notice has been given must be made a part of the participant's file.