alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Carl G. HENRY, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. CITY OF CROWLEY et al., Defendants and Appellants.

No. 4275.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Sept. 18, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 2, 1973.

Writ Refused Dec. 14, 1973.

Joseph S. Gueno, Jr., Crowley, for defendants-appellants.

P. J. Chappuis, II, Crowley, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before FRUGÉ, SAVOY and DOMEN-GEAUX, JJ.

DOMENGEAUX, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in the case of Hoffpauir, et al. v. City of Crowley, et al., La.App., 284 So.2d 114, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed at the costs, insofar as they are assessable to them, of defendants-appellants in both courts.

Affirmed.
Bricklayers Local 5 Suspension Application 

Section 3.01 New Entrants Assumption 

New entrants to the Plan are assumed to enter the Plan at age 30 with 100% replacement of decremented 

active members. 

Z:\009 5\p\Misc Corr\20 16\Suspension\Application\Items for Completeness\3 .01 New Entrant Assumption.docx 
Plan Year Ending 12/31 

Current Actives 

Future New Entrants 

Total Actives 

Term Vesteds 

Retirees 

Beneficiaries 

Total 

Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers LocalS New York Pension Plan 

$ 

Benefit Payments by Status 

2016 2017 2018 2019 

162,911 $ 198,120 $ 303,295 $ 403,437 $ 

2020 

407,924 $ 

2021 

493,133 $ 

2022 

600,712 

162,911 198,120 303,295 403,437 407,924 493,133 600,712 

126,365 154,445 222,181 303,320 354,942 418,868 562,793 

4,380,838 4,217,758 4,051,962 3,883,779 3,712,994 3,541,047 3,367,899 

456,375 435,757 415,112 394,485 373,923 353,480 333,206 

$ 5,126,489 $ 5,006,080 $ 4,992,550 $ 4,985,021 $ 4,849,783 $ 4,806,528 $ 4,864,610 

*Note these benefit payments do not include an adjustment to the resource benefit level in the year of insolvency 

Z:\009 5\p\Vai\2015\Linked Summary 5 15.xlsx 
Plan Year Ending 12/31 

Current Actives 

Future New Entrants 

Total Actives 

Term V esteds 

Retirees 

Beneficiaries 

Total 

Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers LocalS New York Pension Plan 

2023 

$ 746,885 

746,885 

647,386 

3,194,016 

313,153 

$ 4,901,440 

Benefit Payments by Status 

Z:\009 5\p\Vai\2015\Linked Summary 5 15.xlsx
Page 8.0

Automotive Industries Pension Plan

Checklist Item #8

Does the application include the plan sponsor’s determination of projected insolvency that 

includes the documentation set forth in section 5 of the revenue procedure?

See section 3.03.

Yes. The documentation is attached as Document No. 8.1. 
Page 8.1.1

Document No. 8.1

SECTION 3.03. Plan sponsor’s determination of projected insolvency. 

Pursuant to Internal Revenue Code § 432(e)(9)(C)(ii), the Board of Trustees has determined that 

the Plan is projected to become insolvent unless benefits are suspended, even though all 

reasonable measures to avoid insolvency have been taken. 

The Plan’s actuary certified the Plan to be in “critical and declining” status for the plan year 

beginning January 1, 2016 and has projected the Plan to become insolvent at the end of the year 

2029. The actuary reached this conclusion even though the Board of Trustees has taken all 

reasonable measures to avoid insolvency. The actuarial certification is included in response to 

Checklist Item #5 of this application as Document No. 5.1.

The documentation required by Section 5 of the Rev. Proc. 2016-27 is set forth in the following 

sections of this application:

 For a detailed description of measures taken in order to avoid insolvency over the past 10 

plan years preceding 2016 (year application submitted), see Checklist Item #18.

 For information concerning specific “Plan factors” required by Section 5.02 of Rev. Proc. 

2016-27, see Checklist Item #19.

 For a discussion of how the specific “Plan factors” identified by Section 5.02 (described 

in Checklist Item #19) were taken into account in the Board of Trustees’ determination 

that all reasonable measures were taken to avoid insolvency as required by Section 5.03, 

see Checklist Item #20.

 For a discussion of how (i) benefit and contribution levels on retaining active participants 

and bargaining groups under the Plan, and (ii) past and anticipated contribution increases 

under the plan on employer attrition and retention levels were taken into account in the 

Board of Trustees’ determination that all reasonable measures have been taken to avoid 

insolvency as required by Section 5.03, see Checklist Item #21.

 For a description of any other factors taken into account in the Board of Trustees’ 

determination that all reasonable measures have been taken to avoid insolvency as 

required by Section 5.04, see Checklist Item #22.
### Castaneda, Val (FAA) From: Sent: To : Subject: Castaneda, Val (FAA) Tuesday , April 07, 2015 1 :1 4 PM 'sdickerson@ satx.rr .co m ' FAA Extension Request Notice - Please read Dear Ms. Dickerson, we apologize for not being able to follow up to your request: It is incomplete. We received your letter requestin g a n exte nsion of Ryan's exemption (10750). We cannot process your requ est because the extension has to follow the same forma t as the original request for exemp tion
. I w ill be uploa d ing a very s im ila r letter as the exce r pt be l ow to you r docket, but I wanted to get this information to you as quickly as possible. Although we move as quickly as the process allows us, we normally need between 45 -60 days to process these types of requests. Please keep that in mind as you plan your travel. We are cur rently grantin g these requests for five years now and I don't see anything chang ing between now and when we receive your complete request.
SAM PLE
The FAA apolog izes for no t be in g ab l e to meet your needs. This letter i s to inform yo u that we are un able to p rocess your request for an extensio n ofExe mp tio n No. 10750 from § 121.3ll (b) ofTitle 14 , Code of Fed eral Regu l ations ( 14 CF R). It explain s why we cannot process your r equest and what you shoul d do in th e nex t 30 days. 

### Why We Cannot Process Your Request

The information you se nt does not comply with th e req uirements of§ 11 .81 (copy e nclosed). For us to co n s ider the re qu est any furth er, you must send u s the following:

• The reason s w h y g rantin g th e re quest would be in the public int e r

es t ; that is , how it wou ld benefit the public as a whol e . • The rea so n s why the exempt ion would not adversely affect safety or how t he exe mption would provide a leve l of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from w hich yo u seek an exempt ion
. • Any add iti ona l infom1ation , views, or arg ume nt s avai lable to s upport your reque s t. 

### What You Should Do I 

# ryou want u s to process your reques t any fu rther, you must send the info rm at ion de sc ribed above to re ac h us w ithin 30 days. We have i ncluded a we b s ite where you can do w nl oad sample letters that may he lp you with you r reque s t for an ex t e nsion of you r exe mpti on -- http: // kid s fl ysafc.co m/ in s tru c ti o n s/cares -f or-special-nceds

fl yc rs. We wi ll con s ider the docke t on your reque s t ope n until we receive this required information from you. Please note that 

### § 11.63(d) requires yo u to se nd your petition for exempt io n at leas t 120 days before the proposed effectiv e date o f th e ex ten s ion. Under n ormal circumstances , the exemption process may take up to 1 20 days , there f ore, you shou ld pl an acco rdin gly.

12. If 

### We Do Not Hear F rom Y ou If we do not h ear f rom yo u w i thi n 30 days , we wi ll close th e doc ket without not ifying you furt her. Again, we off e r an apo logy and we look fo rwar d to hear in g from you.

2
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 08-721 

________________________________________________________________________ 

DEFENSE 

Communications 

 Memorandum of Understanding 

Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and CANADA 

Signed at Ottawa and Arlington 

June 25 and July 21, 2008 

with 

Annexes 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
CANADA 

Defense: Communications 

 Memorandum of understanding signed 

 at Ottawa and Arlington 

 June 25 and July 21, 2008; 

 Entered into force July 21, 2008. 

 With annexes. 

 











NOTE: It is noted that this Memorandum of Understanding was signed for the Department of National Defence of Canada on June 25, 2008.












NOTE: It is noted that the lettering between subsections "c" and "e" on this page appears to be out of sequence.
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20549

 

FORM N-CSR

 

| Investment Company Act file number | 811-05983 |
|------------------------------------|-----------|

 

The New Germany Fund, Inc.

 (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)

 

345 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10154-0004

 (Address of principal executive offices)             (Zip code)

 

Registrant’s Telephone Number, including Area Code: (212) 454-7190

 

Paul Schubert

345 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10154-0004

(Name and Address of Agent for Service)

 

| Date of fiscal year end: | 12/31 |
|--------------------------|-------|

 

| Date of reporting period: | 12/31/08 |
|---------------------------|----------|

 

 

**ITEM 1.**           **REPORT TO STOCKHOLDERS**

 

**SUMMARY OF GENERAL INFORMATION**

**THE FUND**

The NewGermany Fund, Inc. (the "Fund") is a diversified, actively managed closed-endfund listed on the New York Stock Exchange with the symbol "GF." The Fund seekslong-term capital appreciation primarily through investment in small and mid-capGerman equities. It is managed and advised by wholly owned subsidiaries of theDeutsche Bank Group. 

**SHAREHOLDER INFORMATION**

Prices for theFund's shares are published daily in the New York Stock Exchange CompositeTransactions section of newspapers. Net asset value and market price informationare published each Saturday in *Barron's* and other newspapersin a table called "Closed End Funds". Daily information on the Fund's net assetvalue is available from NASDAQ (symbol XGFNX). It is also available by calling:1-800-437-6269 (in the U.S.) or 212-454-6266 (outside of the U.S.). In addition,a schedule of the Fund's largest holdings, dividend data and general shareholderinformation may be obtained by calling these numbers. 

The foregoinginformation is also available on our Website: www.newgermanyfund.com.

**There are three closed-end funds investing in European equitiesmanaged by wholly owned subsidiaries of the Deutsche Bank Group:**

o  The European Equity Fund, Inc.--investing primarily in equityand equity-linked securities of companies domiciled in European countriesutilizing the Euro currency. 

o  The New Germany Fund, Inc.--investing primarily in middlemarket German companies and up to 20% elsewhere in Western European companies(with no more than 10% in any single country). 

o  The Central Europe and Russia Fund, Inc.--investing primarilyin Central European and Russian equities. 

Please consultyour broker for advice on any of the above or call 1-800-437-6269 (in the U.S.) or212-454-6266 (outside of the U.S.) for shareholder reports. 

These fundsfocus their investments in certain geographical regions, thereby increasingtheir vulnerability to developments in that region. Investing in foreignsecurities presents certain risks, such as currency fluctuation, political andeconomic changes, and market risks.
Exhibit (h)(12)

**GUARANTEE ISSUED BY BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION**

**WHEREAS**, DWS Target Fund, an open-end management investment company organized as a business trust under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (the “**Trust**”), on behalf of its series, DWS LifeCompass Protect 2017 Fund (f/k/a DWS LifeCompass Protect Fund, the “**Fund**”), Deutsche Investment Management Americas Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware (the “**Adviser**,” and together with the Fund, the “**Guaranteed Parties**,” each a “**Guaranteed Party**”), and Merrill Lynch Bank USA, an industrial bank organized under the laws of the State of Utah(“**MLBUSA**” or “**Assignor**”), are parties to a financial warranty agreement dated November 1, 2007 (as amended, restated, modified or otherwise supplemented from time to time in accordance with the terms thereof, the “**Financial Warranty Agreement**”); and

**WHEREAS**, MLBUSA has issued a financial warranty to the Fund pursuant to the Financial Warranty Agreement; and 

**WHEREAS**, Bank of America Corporation (the “**Guarantor**”), is the indirect owner of all of the outstanding capital stock of Main Place Funding, LLC, a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of Delaware (“**MPF**”), and, as such, expects to derive both direct and indirect economic benefit from the Financial Warranty Agreement and the issuance of the Financial Warranty (defined below); and

**WHEREAS**, MLBUSA has divested, assigned and conveyed all of its rights, interests and obligations under the Financial Warranty Agreement to MPF, and MPF has acquired and assumed all such rights, interests and obligations of MLBUSA under the Financial Warranty Agreement (the “**Assignment**”) including, without limitation, the obligation to issue a Financial Warranty pursuant to the Assignment, Consent and Amendment Agreement dated as of the date hereof (the “**Assignment Agreement**”); and

**WHEREAS**, MPF has issued a new financial warranty to the Fund pursuant to the Financial Warranty Agreement and the Assignment Agreement (the “**Financial Warranty**”); and 

**WHEREAS**, in order to induce the Trust, on behalf of the Fund, and the Adviser to consent to the Assignment pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Assignment Agreement, Guarantor hereby issues this Guarantee of the payment and performance by MPF of its obligations under the Financial Warranty Agreement on the terms and conditions set forth below. 

**NOW THEREFORE**, for and in consideration of the foregoing and of any accommodations heretofore, now or hereafter made to or for the benefit of MPF pursuant to the Financial Warranty Agreement or any other Transaction Document executed pursuant to or in connection therewith or herewith, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, Guarantor hereby agrees as follows:

 

----
#### COBB’S AUTO SALES, INC., Appellant, v. MELVIN COLEMAN, as Sheriff of and for Orange County, Florida, the Sentinel Star Company, the Outlet Company d/b/a WDBO Channel 6, Central Nine Corporation, Florida Heartland Television, Inc., all Florida Corporations operating as a joint venture known as, Channel Nine of Orlando, Cowles Florida Broadcasting, Inc. d/b/a WESH-TV, NBC Channel 2, and the City of Orlando, a Municipal Corporation, Appellees.

No. 76-2655.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 4, 1978.

*923J. Russell Hornsby, Law Offices of J. Russell Hornsby, P. A., Orlando, for appellant.

Chris W. Altenbernd of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, P. A., Tampa, for appellee Melvin Coleman.

ANSTEAD, Judge.

This is an appeal from the dismissal of a defamation action brought by the appellant, Cobb’s Auto Sales, Inc., against the appel-lee, Melvin Coleman. The issue is whether Florida Statute 768.28 relating to the waiver of sovereign immunity in tort cases affects the defense of privilege successfully asserted by the sheriff in the trial court.

As an executive officer the sheriff enjoys an absolute privilege as to any statements he makes incidental to his official duties. *Hauser v. Urchisin,*231 So.2d 6 (Fla.1970); *McNayr v. Kelly,*184 So.2d 428 (Fla.1966); *Knight v. Starr,*275 So.2d 37 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). The defense of privilege is a separate and distinct concept from sovereign immunity, the abrogation of which appellant relies on here to avoid the defense of privilege. The doctrine of sovereign immunity was a rule laid down by the ruling authority that he, because he was the ruler, could do no wrong and therefore was immune from any charges that he had done wrong. The legislature, by enacting Section 768.28, decided this common law doctrine should be removed from the law of Florida.

On the other hand the defense of absolute privilege is based on consideration of the public interest:

> The public interest requires that statements made by officials of all branches of government in connection with their official duties be absolutely privileged. Under our democratic system the stewardship of public officials is daily observed by the public. It is necessary that free and open explanations of their actions be made.1

There is nothing in Section 768.28 to indicate that the legislature intended to take away the defense of absolute privilege. In fact, sheriffs were less affected than others by the passage of the statute because they had no sovereign immunity. *Holland v. Mayes,*155 Fla. 129, 19 So.2d 709 (1944).

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED.

ALDERMAN, C. J, and CROSS, J., concur.

1

. *Hauser v. Urchisin,*231 So.2d 6, 8 (Fla.1970).
The ERT file for Facility 6469 Antelope Valley Station Unit B2 does not 

contain any emissions data, therefore an extracted ERT Test Report is not 

provided. The VOC and CO Emssion data is instead contained in the file 

6469_Unit_B2_VOC_CO.xlsx.
#### TOP OF THE HOME, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. Fred PACE et al., Respondents.

No. 40519.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 9, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### Walter M. FERGUSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-702.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 8, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 12.2**

 

**CEO Certification**

 

I, Ricardo Alejandro Torres, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Pampa Energía S.A.;

 

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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. The company’s other certifying officer(s) 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the company 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 company, 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) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

 

(c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’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

 

(d) Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’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 company’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 company’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: April 27, 2012

 

 

 

 

----
### Tribal TSD materials Bill Maxwell to: Cortney_Higgins 03/02/2011 04:44 PM Cc: RobertJ Wayland, James White, Laura McKelvey

C ortney --

Attached are the Tribal TSD materials.

Thanks.

Toxics Rule Demographics _03.02.2011_.pdf Summary of Outreach and Consultation with Tribal

Governments _022811.pdf 1_ FCPC follow up to EPA_s consultation on utility MACT rulemaking.pdf

2_ FCPC Comments on EPA_s CAMR Rulemaking.pdf 3) Watras Study - Devils Lake - Mercury Final Report- June 06.pdf

Deliberative Document -- FOIA Exempt

Bill Maxwell Energy Strategies Group Sector Policies and Programs Division U.S. EPA Mail Code D243-01 109 T.W. Alexander Drive Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Phone: 919-541-5430 FAX: 919-541-5450
#### WINN-DIXIE STORES, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Hildred SAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Appellee.

No. 73-178.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 31, 1973.

Nicholson, Howard, Brawner & Lovett, and Robert A. Freyer, Miami, for appellant.

Marvin Kurzban, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant defendant seeks review of the trial court’s denial of its motion to dismiss' this class action.1 We reverse.

We have carefully considered the briefs, arguments of counsel and the record before us and must agree that the appellee has failed to sufficiently allege the necessary requisites of a bona fide class action. Port Royal, Inc. v. Convoy, Fla.App.1963, 154 So.2d 734. Merely, “touching all the bases”, so to speak, with general allegations is an insufficient foundation for a true class action. See, Hendler v. Rogers House Condominium, Inc., Fla.App.1970, 234 So.2d 128, and cases cited therein. Moreover, it is the responsibility of the plaintiff to provide to the court any documents upon which his alleged cause of *48action is based. R.C.P. 1.130, 30 F.S.A. Accordingly, the order of the trial court denying appellant’s motion to dismiss is reversed with directions for the trial court to dismiss appellee’s complaint without prejudice to the filing of an amended complaint.

Reversed and remanded with directions.

1

. Our disposition of this case makes consideration of appellant’s second point unnecessary.
#### MARION COUNTY COOPERATIVE (AAL) v. Mrs. Enoch WATSON.

No. 49705.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Sept. 28, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 26, 1977.

Clyde Ratcliff, McComb, for appellant.

Sebe Dale, Columbia, for appellee.

Before INZER, P. J., and ROBERTSON and BROOM, JJ.

AFFIRMED.