alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 197 (Friday, October 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 52986]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26935]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-59-009]


Midwestern Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

October 6, 1997.
    Take notice that on October 1, 1997, Midwestern Gas Transmission 
Company (Midwestern), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with 
an effective date of November 1, 1997:

Second Revised Sheet No. 85
Third Revised Sheet No. 110A
Second Revised Sheet No. 188

    Midwestern states that these sheets are filed in compliance with 
the Commission's June 16, 1997, Order on Compliance Filing in the 
above-referenced dockets (June 16 Order). Midwestern Gas Transmission 
Company, 79 FERC para. 61,350 (1997). In accordance with the June 16, 
Order, Midwestern requests an effective date of November 1, 1997.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
this proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-26935 Filed 10-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Harry R. HOOPER and Mrs. Harry R. Hooper, a/k/a Jane Hooper, Appellants, v. The HOME INDEMNITY COMPANY, Inc., Appellee.

No. 70-205.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 21, 1970.

Douglas M. Midgley, Midgley & Nelson, Fort Myers, for appellants.

Stephen L. Helgemo, Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & Holt, P. A., Fort Myers, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See In re Estate of Van Meter, Fla.App.1968, 214 So.2d 639.

HOBSON, C. J., and LILES and PIERCE, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 201 (Friday, October 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54097-54098]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27737]


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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: Consumer Product Safety Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, October 22, 1997.

LOCATION: Room 420, East West Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, 
Maryland.

STATUS: Open to the Public.

Matter to be Considered:

FY 1998 Operating Plan

    The staff will brief the Commission on issues related to the 
Commission's Operating Plan for Fiscal Year 1998.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-0709.


[[Page 54098]]


CONTACT PERSON FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Sadye E. Dunn, Office of the 
Secretary, 4330 West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20207 (301) 504-0800.

    Dated: October 15, 1997.
Sadye E. Dunn,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-27737 Filed 10-15-97; 2:31 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-M
**Exhibit (d)(2)**

 

**AMENDED AND RESTATED**

**INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT**

AGREEMENT, dated as of May 1, 2008, and revised as of July 1, 2008, among DWS Target Fund, a Massachusetts business trust (the “Trust”), on its own behalf and on behalf of each of the Funds listed on Schedule I to this Agreement (each a “Fund” and together, the “Funds”), and Deutsche Investment Management Americas Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Adviser”), effective with respect to each Fund as of the date set out with respect to such Fund on Schedule I to this Agreement, as may be amended from time to time.

 

WHEREAS, the Trust is engaged in business as an open-end investment company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “Investment Company Act”);

 

WHEREAS, the Trust engages in the business of investing and reinvesting the assets of each Fund in accordance with the investment objectives, policies and restrictions specified in the currently effective Prospectus (the “Prospectus”) and Statement of Additional Information (the “SAI”) of each Fund included in the Trust’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A, as amended from time to time (the “Registration Statement”), filed by the Trust under the Investment Company Act and the Securities Act of 1933, as amended;

 

WHEREAS, the Adviser is engaged principally in rendering investment management services and is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the “Advisers Act”);

 

WHEREAS, the Trust desires to retain the Adviser to provide investment management services to each Fund on the terms set out in this Agreement, and the Adviser is willing to provide investment management services to each Fund on the terms set out in this Agreement; and

 

WHEREAS, the Trust and the Adviser desire to amend and restate the current Investment Management Agreement for each Fund dated April 5, 2002.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the covenants contained in this Agreement, the Trust, each Fund and the Adviser agree as follows:

 

|   | 1. | *Appointment and Services*. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------|

 

(a)       The Trust appoints the Adviser to act as investment manager to each Fund.  The Adviser accepts its appointment and agrees to provide the services set out in this Agreement for the compensation set out in this Agreement.

 

(b)       Subject to the terms of this Agreement, and the supervision of the Board of Trustees, the Adviser will provide continuing investment management of the assets of 

 

----
#### SOUTH FLORIDA VENDORAMA, INC., Appellant, v. Michael COLODNY, D. F. of Hollywood, Inc., a Florida Corporation, et al., and Florida Business Opportunities, Inc., Appellees.

Nos. 76-558, 76-737 and 76-738.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 26, 1977.

Joseph R. DeLucca, North Miami, for ap. pellant,

Leo N. Rose, Hunter, Atkinson & Golden, P. A., Hollywood, for appellee, D. F. of Hollywood, Inc.

No brief filed by Michael Colodny.

LETTS, Judge.

This is a consolidated appeal from the granting of an ex parte default judgment for failure to answer a cross claim. We reverse.

The original complaint in interpleader was filed by the named stakeholder, in an agreement for the sale of a business, against the proposed buyer and seller named as defendants. The sale had collapsed and both buyer and seller were demanding the $108,000.00 'deposit from the stakeholder. Not unexpectedly, both the buyer and seller filed cross claims against each other, which the buyer duly answered, but which the seller omitted so to do for a period of eighteen months. At the end of this time lapse, the buyer filed a motion for default which the judge granted on the same day without any notice to the seller.1 Also all on the same afternoon, the judge entered a final default judgment for $108,-000.00, plus interest, against the seller and in favor of the buyer.

There are other procedural and factual complications to these consolidated appeals, but the foregoing is deemed adequate for disposition hereunder.

Rule 1.500(b) Fla.R.Civ.P. (1976) provides in pertinent part:

> By the Court. When a party against whom affirmative relief is sought has failed to plead or otherwise defend as provided by these rules or any applicable statute . . , the court may enter a default against such party; *provided that if such party has filed or served any paper in the action, he shall be served with notice of the application for default*(Emphasis supplied).

*1213Pursuant to this rule, the buyer defends the entry of the default because of the failure to file any answer to the cross claim. The fallacy in this argument, however, rests upon the words emphasized above in the quoted rule. The seller *did*file and serve many papers during the eighteen month period including, for example, a motion for continuance, motion to withdraw as counsel, notice of taking deposition and motion for summary judgment. Similarly, during the same period the buyer, seller and other intervening parties, all rained pleadings on each other. Pursuant thereto they also attended depositions and hearings, all of which indicate to us that neither the litigants nor the court were conscious of the omission.

Without further discussion, we hold that the seller *did*file and serve “(m)any paper(s) in the action” and was therefore entitled to “notice of the application for default”, all in accordance with Rule 1.500(b) Fla.R.Civ.P. (1976). See also *Freedman v. Freedman,*235 So.2d 544 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1970).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

MAGER, C. J., and CROSS, J., concur.

1

. Note the judge granted this motion, not the clerk.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 OFFICERS CERTIFICATE
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302*
             Date: November 26, 2007By:
    /s/ Philippe Van AckerName:
    Philippe Van AckerTitle:
    Chief Financial Officer 
 *
    
    The introductory portion of paragraph 4 of the Section 302 certification that refers to the
certifying officers responsibility for establishing and maintaining internal control over
financial reporting for the company, as well as paragraph 4(b), have been omitted in
accordance with Release No. 33-8760 (December 15, 2006) because the compliance period has been
extended for small business issuers until the first fiscal year ending on or after December
15, 2007.
254 La. 922

#### LURIA BROTHERS & CO., Inc. v. CAPITOL STEEL, INC., as Successor to Mike Safer Company, Inc.

No. 50144.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 11, 1969.

In re: Luria Brothers & Co., Inc. applying for certiorari or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 225 So.2d 630.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, the result is correct.
#### Carl Lott SMITH, Petitioner, v. CITIZENS BANK OF GAINESVILLE, a Florida banking corporation, now known as Sun Bank of Gainesville, Respondent.

No. 44351.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 16, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 281 So.2d 624.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD,-McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 206 (Friday, October 24, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 55331]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28224]



========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each 
week.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 206 / Friday, October 24, 1997 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 55331]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 101

[Docket Nos. 95N-0245, 95N-0282, and 95N-0347]
RIN 0910-AA59


Food Labeling; Nutrient Content Claims: Definition for ``High 
Potency'' and Definitions of ``Antioxidant'' for Use in Nutrient 
Content Claims for Dietary Supplements and Conventional Foods; 
Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a final 
rule that appeared in the Federal Register of September 23, 1997 (62 FR 
49868). The document amended the agency regulations to: Define the term 
``high potency'' as a nutrient content claim; define nutrient content 
claims using the term ``antioxidant'' (e.g., ``good source of 
antioxidants,'' ``high in antioxidants,'' ``more antioxidants''); and 
to correct an omission pertaining to the use of ``sugar free'' claims 
on dietary supplements. The document was published with an incorrect 
RIN number. This document corrects that error.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 23, 1999.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Camille E. Brewer, Center for Food 
Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-165), Food and Drug Administration, 
200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-205-5483.
    In FR Doc. 97-24732, appearing on page 49868 in the Federal 
Register of Tuesday, September 23, 1997, the following correction is 
made:
    1.  On page 49868, in the first column, in the heading, ``RIN 0905-
AD96'' is corrected to read ``RIN 0910-AA59''.

    Dated: October 17, 1997.
William K. Hubbard,
Associate Commissioner for Policy Coordination.
[FR Doc. 97-28224 Filed 10-23-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
# Data
Deutsche Investment Management Americas Inc.
                            One Beacon Street
                            Boston, MA 02108

                            March 3, 2009



Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F Street, N.E.
Washington, DC  20549



         RE:      DWS Europe Equity Fund, DWS Latin America Equity Fund and DWS
                  Emerging Markets Equity Fund (each a "Fund", and together the
                  "Funds"), each a series of DWS International Fund, Inc. (the
                  "Corporation") (Reg. Nos. 2-14400, 811-00642)



Ladies and Gentlemen:

Pursuant to Rule 497(j) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, the
Corporation hereby certifies that the form of Prospectuses and Statements of
Additional Information that would have been filed on behalf of the Funds
pursuant to Rule 497(c) upon the effectiveness of Post-Effective Amendment No.
114 to the Corporation's Registration Statement on form N-1A (the "Amendment"),
do not differ from that contained in the Amendment, which is the most recent
Registration Statement and was filed electronically on February 27, 2009.


Any comments or questions on this filing should be directed to the undersigned
at (617) 295-3986.

                                    Very truly yours,

                                    /s/Scott D. Hogan

                                    Scott D. Hogan
                                    Vice President
                                    Deutsche Investment Management Americas Inc.

cc:      Adam Schlichtmann, Esq., Ropes & Gray
255 La. 1103

#### Mrs. John Hansen TRAHAN v. Reme THIBODEAUX et al.

No. 50528.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 4, 1970.

In re: Mrs. John Hansen Trahan applying for writ of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.

Writs refused. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.
#### Charles Edward BETTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. N-459.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 22, 1970.

George Ralph Miller, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Michael J. Minerva, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

*168PER CURIAM.

The briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration and the appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court appealed from herein is affirmed. See Belton v. State, 217 So.2d 97 (Fla.1968) and Foreman v. State, 213 So.2d 754 (Fla.App.1968).

JOHNSON, C. J., and SPECTOR and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, William Lonergan, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of LookSmart, Ltd.;
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 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;
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: November 7, 2003



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/    WILLIAM LONERGAN
|                       
|Chief Financial Officer
Abatement Order filed April 12, 2012. 

In The

 

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-12-00155-CV

____________

ROBERT FIELDS AND JOHN FIELDS, CO-INDEPENDENT EXECUTORS OF THE 

ESTATE OF JAMES R. FIELDS, DECEASED, Appellant

V.

MARY ELIZABETH LEE FIELDS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 190th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011-52159

ABATEMENT ORDER

We have determined that this case is appropriate for referral to mediation, an alternative 

dispute resolution process. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code '' 154.021—.073. Mediation is a 

forum in which an impartial person, the mediator, facilitates communication between parties to 

promote reconciliation or settlement. Id. ' 154.023(a). Any communication relating to the 

subject matter of the appeal made by a participant in the mediation proceeding is confidential. 

See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code ' 154.053. After mediation, the parties shall advise the court 

whether the case settled, or whether any further negotiation efforts are planned. 
2

The court ORDERS the appeal ABATED for a period of sixty days and refers the 

underlying dispute to mediation. Any party may file a written objection to this order with the 

clerk of this court within 10 days of the date of this order. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code '

154.022. If this court finds that there is a reasonable basis for the objection, the objection shall 

be sustained and the appeal reinstated on this court’s active docket. See id.

The court ORDERS that the mediation be held within 60 days of the date of this order. 

The court ORDERS that all parties or their representatives with full settlement authority shall 

attend the mediation process, with their counsel of record. The court FURTHER ORDERS that 

within 48 hours of completion of the mediation, the parties shall advise the court in writing 

whether the case settled.

If mediation fully resolves the issues in the case, the court ORDERS the parties to file a 

motion to dismiss the appeal, other dispositive motion, or a motion for additional time to file the 

dispositive motion, within 10 days of the conclusion of the mediation. 

The court ORDERS the appellate timetable in this case suspended for 60 days from the 

date of this order.

The appeal is ABATED, treated as a closed case, and removed from this court=s active 

docket for a period of sixty days. The appeal will be reinstated on this court=s active docket after 

sixty days. Any party may file a motion stating grounds for reinstating the appeal before the end 

of the sixty-day period. Any party may also file a motion to dismiss the appeal or other 

dispositive motion at any time. Any party may file a motion to extend the abatement period for 

completion of mediation or to finalize a settlement. 

PER CURIAM
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 200 (Thursday, October 16, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 53845]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27416]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-213]


Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company, Haddam Neck Plant; 
Notice of Meeting Regarding Post-Shutdown Decommission Activities 
Report

    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) previously published a 
Notice of Receipt (62 FR 46783, dated September 4, 1997) of the Post-
Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR), dated August 22, 
1997, for the Haddam Neck Plant (HNP) located in Middlesex County, 
Connecticut, Town of Haddam.
    In that previous Federal Register Notice, the NRC stated that it 
would hold a public meeting in the vicinity of the Haddam Neck Plant 
within 60 days of that notice. The purpose of this informational 
meeting is to (1) describe the licensee's planned activities, (2) 
describe the regulatory process for decommissioning, (3) hear public 
comments regarding health and safety, and protection of the environment 
during decommissioning, and (4) provide an opportunity for State and 
local representatives to participate. The licensee, Connecticut Yankee 
Atomic Power Co., will discuss their plans to decommission the Haddam 
Neck Plant. The NRC will discuss the PSDAR and the license termination 
process, and describe the program for future plant oversight. The 
public will have an opportunity to comment on the PSDAR and the meeting 
will be transcribed by a court reporter.
    The meeting is scheduled for Monday, October 27, 1997 from 6:30 pm 
to 10:00 pm in the auditorium of the Haddam Killingsworth High School 
on Little City Road in Higganum, Connecticut.
    The PSDAR is available for public inspection at the local public 
document room located in the Russell Library, 123 Broad Street, 
Middletown, CT 06457, and at the Commission Public Document Room, 2120 
L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20037.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of October 1997.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Seymour H. Weiss,
Director, Non-Power Reactors and Decommissioning Project Directorate, 
Division of Reactor Program Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor 
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-27416 Filed 10-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7950-01-P
#### Franklin David LEWIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. L-372.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Oct. 21, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.