alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549



                                    FORM 6-K

                        REPORT OF FOREIGN PRIVATE ISSUER
                    PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-16 OR 15D-16 UNDER
                      THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934


                        FOR THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, 2013

                       COMMISSION FILE NUMBER: 000-29832




                             CHELSEA OIL & GAS LTD.
                (Translation of registrant's name into English)


                              3200, 500 4TH AVENUE
                           CALGARY, AB CANADA T2P 2V6
                    (Address of principal executive office)


Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports
under cover of Form 20-F or Form 40-F.

         Form 20-F  [X]             Form 40-F

Indicate  by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(1): ____

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b)(7): ____

Indicate by check mark whether by furnishing the information contained in this
Form, the registrant is also thereby furnishing the information to the
Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

         Yes                      No [X]

If "Yes" is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant in
connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82- .

The information contained in Exhibits No. 99.1, 99.2, 99.3, 99.4 and 99.5 of
this Form 6-K is incorporated by reference as additional exhibits to the
registrant's registration statement on Form S-8: File No. 333-153684.


<PAGE>



                                   SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

                                                   CHELSEA OIL & GAS LTD.

Date:    December 10, 2013                      By: /s/ JESSE MEIDL
                                                   ------------------
                                                   Name:    Jesse Meidl
                                                   Title:   CFO & Director


<PAGE>



                                 EXHIBIT INDEX

EXHIBIT NO.    DESCRIPTION

99.1            Press Release dated November 29, 2013

99.2            Unaudited financial statements and notes for the quarter ended
                September 30, 2013

99.3            Management's Discussion & Analysis for the quarter ended S
                September 30, 2013

99.4            CEO Certification

99.5            CFO Certification







<PAGE>
United States of America

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Office of the Secretary

March 24, 2015

Michael Elberson, President

Autoquip, Inc.

N57 W13430 Reichert Avenue

Menomonee Falls, WI 53051

RE: In the Matter of Graco Inc., Illinois Tool Works Inc., and ITW Finishing LLC, 

Docket No. 9350

Dear Mr. Elberson:

Thank you for the comment, which you submitted on November 12, 2014, in connection 

with the Application for Approval of Divestiture (“Application”) filed by Graco Inc. (“Graco”) 

in which Graco proposes to divest certain industrial liquid finishing assets to Carlisle Companies 

Incorporated (“Carlisle”). The Commission placed both the application and your comment on 

the public record and has given your comment careful consideration.

In your comment, you refer to the intention of Graco and Carlisle to implement antitrust 

compliance training programs to avoid any perception of entanglement and mitigate any 

concerns about two Carlisle officers who previously worked for Graco. You express your 

support for these programs, but suggest that the programs should also address antitrust issues 

relating to a manufacturer’s dealings with distributors.

The Commission’s complaint in this matter, however, alleges violations of the law only 

with respect to Graco’s acquisition of industrial liquid finishing assets from Illinois Tool Works 

Inc. and ITW Finishing LLC, and the Commission’s order in this matter does not require Graco 

to implement an antitrust compliance program at all. After careful consideration of your 

comment, the Commission has determined to approve the proposed divestiture, including the 

proposed antitrust compliance programs. We believe that the proposed antitrust compliance 

programs appropriately address the remedial goals of the order.

It helps the Commission’s analysis to hear from a variety of sources in its work on 

antitrust and consumer protection issues, and we appreciate your interest in this matter.

By direction of the Commission, Commissioner Ohlhausen abstaining, and 

Commissioner Wright and Commissioner McSweeny not participating.

Donald S. Clark

Secretary
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.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting: Change.

# SUMMARY:

                        In the                         **Federal Register**                         notice that was originally published on May 8, 2018, (Volume 83, Number 89, Page 20913) the meeting date has changed. The date is changed from Wednesday, June 27, 2018 to Thursday, June 28, 2018.                    

# DATES:

The meeting will be held Thursday, June 28, 2018.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lisa Billups at 1-888-912-1227 or (214) 413-6523.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Joint Committee will be held Thursday, June 28, 2018, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time via teleconference. The public is invited to make oral comments or submit written statements for consideration. For more information please contact Lisa Billups at 1-888-912-1227 or (214) 413-6523, or write TAP Office, 1114 Commerce Street, Dallas, TX 75242-1021, or post comments to the website:                     *http://www.improveirs.org*.                

The agenda will include various committee issues for submission to the IRS and other TAP related topics. Public input is welcomed.

Dated: June 6, 2018.

Kevin Brown,

Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.

[FR Doc. 2018-12579 Filed 6-11-18; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
#### Irv-Man Realty Co., Inc., Appellant, *v.*Lawrence O’Connor, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

November 6, 1952.

*Julius Siegel*for appellant.

*Samuel Davis*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

As the tenancy was statutory in character, each month’s occupation of the demised premises gave rise to a separate and distinct cause of action for rent. The doctrine invoked by defendant applies only where there is a splitting of a single indivisible cause of action *(Gedney*v. *Gedney,*19 App. Div. 407, affd. 160 N. Y. 471). Cases dealing with installments of rent or otherwise due under leases or other contracts are clearly distinguishable since they involve splitting of single *305causes of action under the leases or contracts in question. In the instant case, no splitting of a single cause of action is involved.

The judgment should be reversed, with $30 costs, and judgment directed in favor of plaintiff, with costs.

Schreiber and Hecht, JJ., concur in *Per Curiam*memorandum; Hofstadter, J., concurs in result.

Judgment reversed, etc.
#### Willard Ray LEITNER, Appellant, v. CITY OF OKEECHOBEE, Florida, etc., Appellee.

No. 39146.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 7, 1970.

Appeal dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       5,940,131
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,439,865
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,564,954
<PP&E>                                      50,192,433
<DEPRECIATION>                              17,698,937
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              48,595,996
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,719,310
<BONDS>                                     29,727,215
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,674,979
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                48,595,996
<SALES>                                      7,463,653
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,750,565
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,037,256
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,181,195
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,857,972
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              3,864,930
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,864,930
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,864,930
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FIRST MARYLAND BANCORP MARCH 31, 1997 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         848,615
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             234
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               579,670
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 1,011
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                  2,497,045
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      6,782,130
<ALLOWANCE>                                    154,806
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,217,780
<DEPOSITS>                                   7,644,702
<SHORT-TERM>                                 1,460,532
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            331,090
<LONG-TERM>                                    209,756
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            7,748
<PREFERRED>                                     30,000
<COMMON>                                        84,926
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,143,806
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>              11,217,780
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                136,038
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               40,736
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                 7,841
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               184,615
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              50,476
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              80,212
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                          104,403
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    9,900
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 453
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                102,465
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 53,296
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      34,103
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    34,103
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.33
<LOANS-NON>                                     54,352
<LOANS-PAST>                                    18,266
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   121
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 22,751
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               154,802
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   11,353
<RECOVERIES>                                     1,457
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              154,806
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            80,320
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                             11,220
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                         63,266
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.1(aj)  FIFTH AMENDMENT
TOTHE
SAUER-DANFOSS
EMPLOYEES SAVINGS PLAN
(Formerly the Sauer-Sundstrand Employees Savingsand Retirement Plan, As Amended and Restated,
Effective January 1, 1997
and Renamed As of January 1, 2001)  By virtue and in exercise of
the amending power reserved to Sauer Danfoss Company (the Company) by
subsection 14.1 of the Sauer-Danfoss Employees Savings Plan (formerly, the
Sauer-Sundstrand Employees Savings and Retirement Plan), Amended and Restated
as of January 1, 1997 and Renamed as of January 1,2001 (the Plan and pursuant to the authority delegated
to the undersigned officer of the Company by the Employe  Benefit Committee of the Company, the Plan
is hereby amended, effective as of January 1, 2001, in the following
particulars:  1.By substituting the following for the
parenthetical phrase in the first paragraph of Section 1.8 of the Plan:  (including any amounts that
are excluded from the Participants taxable income pursuant to Sections, 125,
402(g)(3), and effective January 1, 2001, Section 132(f)(4)of the Code.)  2.By deleting the second paragraph of Section
6.3(e)(ii) of the Plan and replacing it with the following:  Notwithstanding the
foregoing, effective January 1, 1998, a Participants Section 415 Compensation
shall also include elective deferrals, as defined in Sections 402(g)(3) and 125
of the Code. Effective, January 1, 2001, a Participants Section 415
Compensation shall also include amounts excluded from income under Section
132(f)(4) of the Code.  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the above amendment is adopted this 25th day of February,
2002.   SAUER
  DANFOSS (US) COMPANYBy:
  /s/ Kenneth P. McCuskeyIts:
  Vice President Finance
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Oscar GOINS.

No. 61051.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 15, 1978.

Bernard E. McLaughlin, Jr., Lake Charles, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frank T. Salter, Jr., Dist. Atty., Adam L. Ortego, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
260 La. 112

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Henry T. McDONALD v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 51951.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 7, 1971.

In re: Henry T. McDonald applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and habeas corpus.

Application denied for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the trial judge.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 30, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 133385 & (16) Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Plaintiff-Appellee, Stephen J. Markman,
Justices v SC: 133385 COA: 275674 Marquette CC: 87-020482-FH BENNIE GRAVES, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 7, 2007 order of the Court of Appeal s is considered, and it is DE NIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is proh ibited by MCR 6.502(G). The motion for
miscellaneous relief is DENIED.

s0521 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 30, 2007

Clerk
MANDATE

Court of Appeals 

 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-16-00276-CV

ROBERT DAVENPORT AND JAYNE EDISON, Appellants

V.

DR. SAMUEL MAXWELL ADU-LARTEY AND ATHLETIC ORTHOPEDICS AND 

KNEE CENTER, P.A. D/B/A AOK ORTHOPEDICS, Appellees

Appeal from the 189th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 2014-71784).

TO THE 189TH DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before this Court, on the 8th day of June 2017, the case upon appeal to revise or to 

reverse your judgment was determined. This Court made its order in these words:

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed 

by the trial court on March 4, 2016. After submitting the case 

on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised by 

the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment 

contains no reversible error. Accordingly, the Court affirms

the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that the appellants, Robert Davenport 

and Jayne Edison, jointly and severally, pay all appellate costs.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below 

for observance.
Judgment rendered June 8, 2017.

Panel consists of Justices Bland, Massengale, and Lloyd. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Massengale.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in 

this behalf and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

May 25, 2018

Date CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

CLERK OF THE COURT
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 

AMENDMENT TO THE 

ALLIANT ENERGY DEFINED CONTRIBUTION 

SUPPLEMENTAL RETIREMENT PLAN 

This Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the Alliant Energy Defined Contribution Supplemental Retirement Plan, effective as of
January 1, 2006 (as amended, amended and restated or otherwise modified from time to time, the “Plan”), is made by the Compensation and Personnel Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Plan Administrator”) of
ALLIANT ENERGY CORPORATION (the “Company”), effective as of March 12, 2014. Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Plan. 

WHEREAS, the Plan Administrator has determined that it is in the best interests of the Company and the participants of the Plan that the
Plan’s vesting rules be simplified and investment credit benchmark fund be changed; and 
 WHEREAS, the Plan Administrator now desires
to amend the Plan as provided below. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Article 8 of the Plan, the Plan Administrator amends the Plan as
follows: 
 Section 1. Amendment: 

The first sentence of Section 2.14 first sentence is hereby deleted and replaced with the following: 

The Participant’s Separation from Service after the Participant has at least 5 years of Continuous SRP Employment and has attained age
55. 
 3. Section 4.1(b) is hereby deleted and replaced with the following: 

        (b) As of each December 31, the account shall be credited with the
positive or negative deemed investment return on the balance of the account at the beginning of the calendar year less any distributions during the year, based on the calendar year’s investment results for the S&P 500 index fund included in
the Mutual Fund Account under the Alliant Energy Deferred Compensation Plan; and 
 Section 2. Effect of Amendment: On
and after the effectiveness of this Amendment, each reference in the Plan to “this Plan,” “hereunder,” “hereof” or words of like import referring to the Plan, shall mean and be a reference to the Plan, as amended by
this Amendment. Except as amended hereby, the Plan continues and shall remain in full force and effect in all respects.
#### FOGARTY BROS. TRANSFER COMPANY, Inc., a corporation, and James Killingsworth, Jr., Petitioners, v. Fred B. PERKINS, Respondent.

No. 71-187.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 14, 1971.

Stephen F. Myers, of Shackleford, Far-rior, Stallings & Evans, Tampa, for petitioners.

Edward J. Hunter, Tampa, for respondent.

McNULTY, Judge.

In this pending automobile negligence action the defendant Fogarty Bros, was ordered to produce and make available to plaintiff Perkins all accident reports required of its employees by Fogarty Bros, in its regular course of business and pertaining to the instant accident. Particularly, it was further ordered that Fogarty Bros, produce a copy of the accident report which it filed, as required, with the Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Fogarty Bros, now seeks common law certiorari to review the aforesaid order to produce. We issue the writ and quash the order.

In the first place, and apart from any “work product” rule, Fogarty Bros, as a common carrier in this state is required by F.S. § 350.45(1), F.S.A.1969, to make a report of all accidents and to file the same with the Florida Public Service Commission. That section further provides, however, that “ * * * no such report shall be competent evidence in any court * * We construe this proviso as rendering privileged the required reports. Analogously, they should be no less confidential than are the accident reports required of others by F.S. § 317.131, F.S.A. 1969,1 nor any more amenable to discovery. Accordingly, insofar as the order to produce reaches just such an accident report, it is clearly erroneous.

Now, insofar as the order reaches other accident reports, whether for the private use of Fogarty Bros, or to be filed with a federal agency, we think they are protected under the “work product” rule. Such reports are clearly within the purview of the decision of our supreme court in Seaboard Air Line Railroad Company v. Timmons2 in which “work product” was *656held to include * * * (2) statements or reports from agents, officers or employees of the defendant company relating to the accident; and (3) records, investigation sheets, memoranda, and photographs, relating to the accident, including any and all information, investigation sheets, etc. * *

We conclude, therefore, that there has been a departure from the essential requirements of law and that Fogarty Bros, is in jeopardy of irreparable prejudice. Accordingly, common law certiorari is appropriate, and the writ shall issue quashing the order here under review.

Certiorari granted.

LILES, A. C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.

1

. See, F.S. § 317.171, F.S.A.1969, as to the confidentiality of such reports.

2

. (Fln.1952), 61 So.2d 426.