alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### W. L. Wraybourn *v.*The State.

1. Recognizance stated that the defendant was accused of “destroying a fence in M. county.” *Held,*that the recognizance does not comply with the statutory requirement that it shall appear therefrom that the defendant is accused of an offense against the laws of this state.

2. See the Opinion for the requisites of a recognizance in a prosecution based on the 1st section of the act of 1873, “for the protection of agricultural interests,” making it a misdemeanor “ to break, pull down, or injure the fence of another without the consent of the owner or person in possession thereof.”

Appeal from the County Court of Montague. Tried below before the Hon. B. E. Green, County Judge.

The penalty imposed by the act of 1873 for violation of any of its provisions is a fine of not less than $10 nor more than $100.

*Grigsby & Willis,*for the appellant.

*H. H. Boone,*Attorney General, for the State.

White, J.

One of the four requisites to a recognizance is, “ that it appear by the recognizance that the defendant is accused of an offense against the laws of this state.” Pasc. Dig., Art. 2731.

The recognizance in this case states the offense with which defendant is charged to be “ destroying a fence in *8Montague county.” This does not charge any offense. The statute upon which the information in the case was predicated, is in these words, viz.: “ That hereafter it shall be unlawful for any person or persons to break, pull down, or injure the fence or fences of another without the consent of the owner or person in possession thereof.” Acts of 1873, p. 41.

The recognizance in this case does not allege that the act was unlawfully done, or negative the idea but that the fence destroyed might have been the property of defendant. A party might break, pull down, or destroy his own fence without being guilty of a violation of law. And, when it is alleged that the fence was the property of another, it should also be. averred that it was broken, or pulled down, or injured without the consent of the owner. The motion of the attorney general is sustained, and the appeal is dismissed.

*Dismissed.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                        JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                9,382,118
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      9,441,582
<PP&E>                                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        9,441,582
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   277,365
<BONDS>                                       0
<COMMON>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                    0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          9,441,582
<SALES>                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     (1,842,435)
<CGS>                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        814,203
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                      (2,656,638)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                  (2,656,638)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                         (2,656,638)
<EPS-BASIC>                              (316.68)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (316.68)


</TABLE>
# C_2010346EN.01001401.xml

| 18.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 346/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 346/14

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 28 October 2010 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof, Germany) — Volvo Car Company GmbH v Autohof Weidensdorf GmbH

(Case C-203/09) (1)

1

(Directive 86/653/EEC - Self-employed commercial agents - Termination of the agency contract by the principal - Agent’s entitlement to an indemnity)

2010/C 346/22

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Volvo Car Company GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Autohof Weidensdorf GmbH

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesgerichtshof — Interpretation of Article 18(a) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents (OJ 1986 L 382, p. 17) — Termination of agency contract by the principal — Agent’s entitlement to indemnity — National legislation providing for loss of that entitlement in the event of default by the agent justifying immediate termination of the contract, even where the default occurs after termination of the agency contract but before the end of that contract and the principal became aware of the default only after the expiry of the contract

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 18(a) of Council Directive 86/653/EEC of 18 December 1986 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents precludes a self-employed commercial agent from being deprived of his goodwill indemnity where the principal establishes a default by that agent which occurred after notice of termination of the contract was given but before the contract expired and which was such as to justify immediate termination of the contract in question

---

(1)  OJ C 180, 01.08.2009.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1752 Reported in House (RH)]

                                                 House Calendar No. 250
111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 1752

                          [Report No. 111-674]

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
Rules, and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 7, 2010

   Mr. Polis of Colorado, from the Committee on Rules, reported the 
  following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and 
                         ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
Rules, and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

    Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII for a 
two-thirds vote to consider a report from the Committee on Rules on the 
same day it is presented to the House is waived with respect to any 
resolution reported through the legislative day of December 18, 2010.
    Sec. 2.  It shall be in order at any time through the legislative 
day of December 18, 2010, for the Speaker to entertain motions that the 
House suspend the rules. The Speaker or her designee shall consult with 
the Minority Leader or his designee on the designation of any matter 
for consideration pursuant to this section.
                                                 House Calendar No. 250

111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                              H. RES. 1752

                          [Report No. 111-674]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

   Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to 
  consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on 
Rules, and providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            December 7, 2010

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         760,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  243,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    44,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               972,000
<PP&E>                                         306,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 184,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,119,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,480,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,000
<COMMON>                                        40,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,402,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,119,000
<SALES>                                        228,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               228,000
<CGS>                                          113,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  113,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,307,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,200,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,200,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,200,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.30)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.30)


</TABLE>
1

BUSINESS CONDUCT RULES for SWAP DEALERS and MAJOR SWAP PARTICIPANTS

SUMMARY OF ENTITY-LEVEL COMPARABILITY DETERMINATIONS

The following table presents, in summary form, the determinations of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“Commission”)

that certain entity-level regulatory requirements in Australia, Canada, the European Union (“EU”), Hong Kong, Japan, and 

Switzerland are comparable to and as comprehensive as certain entity-level business conduct requirements for non-U.S. swap dealers 

and non-U.S. major swap participants under the Commodity Exchange Act and the Commission’s regulations.

COMPARABILITY DETERMINATION

Commission 

Rule Australia Canada EU Hong Kong Japan Switzerland

Chief 

Compliance 

Officer

§ 3.3

Comparable

(Notes 1, 2)

Comparable

(Note 2)

Comparable

(Note 2)

Comparable

(Note 2)

Comparable

(Note 2)

Comparable

(Note 2)

Swap Data 

Recordkeeping

§§ 23.201, 

23.203

Comparable

(Note 4)

Comparable

(Note 4)

Comparable

(Note 4)

Comparable

(Note 4)

Comparable Comparable

(Note 4)

Risk 

Management 

Program

§ 23.600

Comparable

(Note 3)

Comparable

(Note 3)

Comparable

(Note 3)

Comparable

(Note 3)

Comparable

(Note 3)

Comparable

(Note 3)

Monitoring of 

Position

Limits § 23.601

Comparable Comparable Comparable Comparable Comparable Comparable

Diligent 

Supervision

§ 23.602

Comparable Comparable Comparable Comparable Comparable Comparable

Business 

Continuity

§ 23.603

Comparable Comparable Comparable Comparable Comparable Comparable

Research 

Conflicts

§ 23.605(c)

Comparable Comparable Comparable Comparable Comparable Comparable
2

COMPARABILITY DETERMINATION

Commission 

Rule Australia Canada EU Hong Kong Japan Switzerland

Clearing 

Conflicts

§ 23.605(d)

Comparable Comparable Comparable Comparable Comparable Comparable

Undue Influence

§ 23.605(e) Comparable Comparable Comparable Comparable Comparable Comparable

Availability of 

Information for 

Disclosure

§ 23.606

Comparable

(Note 4)

Comparable

(Note 4)

Comparable

(Note 4)

Comparable

(Note 4)

Comparable Comparable

(Note 4)

Clearing 

Member Risk 

Management

§ 23.609

Comparable Comparable Comparable No 

Determination Comparable No Determination

Note 1: Other than for § 3.3(e), which requires a swap dealer or MSP to produce an annual compliance report and stipulates the 

content thereof.

Note 2: Other than for § 3.3(f), which requires (i) the CEO or CCO of a swap dealer or MSP to certify that the annual compliance 

report is accurate and complete, and (ii) the annual compliance report to be furnished to the Commission.

Note 3: Other than for § 23.600(c)(2), which requires a swap dealer or MSP to produce quarterly risk exposure reports and provide 

such reports to its senior management, governing body, and the Commission.

Note 4: The Commission reserves the right to require a swap dealer or MSP to provide direct access to or produce records required to 

be maintained under the CEA and Commission regulations to Commission staff, the staff of an applicable U.S. prudential regulator, or 

the U.S. Department of Justice.
Exhibit 13.1

Certification

Pursuant to Section 302

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





Graham Kelly, Chief Executive Officer and
Christine Bruce, Acting Chief Financial Officer of Novogen Limited, a New South Wales corporation (the Company), hereby certifies that:



| | (1) | The Companys periodic report on Form 20-F for the period ended June 30, 2014 (the Form 20-F) fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as amended; and
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*    *    *



|                        |  |  |  |                               
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------
|Chief Executive Officer |  |  |  | Acting Chief Financial Officer
|                        |  | 
|/s/ Graham Kelly        |  |  |  | /s/ Christine Bruce           
|Graham Kelly            |  |  |  | Christine Bruce               
|                        |  | 
|Date: October 31, 2014  |  |  |  | Date: October 31, 2014
Commodity Futures Trading Commission ♦ Office of Public Affairs ♦ 202-418-5080

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, NW

Washington, DC 20581

www.cftc.gov

Proposed Rule to Expand the Scope of Consumer Privacy Protections

Under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) announced the publication in the Federal Register of 

proposed regulations that broaden the scope of Part 160 of the Commission’s Regulations, which set forth 

certain protections for the privacy of nonpublic, consumer information. These regulations implement provisions 

of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 made the CFTC a federal functional regulator 

within the meaning of Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

As a federal functional regulator, the CFTC was granted the authority to adopt rules that establish appropriate 

standards for financial institutions subject to its jurisdiction to safeguard customer records and information.

The CFTC’s promulgated rules in 2001 in Part 160 of the Commission’s regulations. Part 160:

• Requires certain entities subject to the CFTC’s jurisdiction to provide notice to consumers about its privacy 

policies and practices.

• Describes the conditions under which an entity subject to the CFTC’s jurisdiction may disclose nonpublic, 

consumer information about consumers to nonaffiliated third parties.

• Provides a method for consumers to prevent an entity subject to the CFTC’s jurisdiction from disclosing 

nonpublic, consumer information to most nonaffiliated third parties by opting out of that disclosure, subject 

to certain exception.

On July 21, 2010, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 

Act.

• Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act amends Title V of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to, among other things, 

affirm the Commission’s authority to promulgate regulations to require entities that are subject to the 

Commission’s jurisdiction to provide certain privacy protections for consumer financial information. 

• Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act created two new entities that are subject to the jurisdiction of the CFTC: 

swap dealers and major swap participants.

• The proposed regulations primarily would expand the scope of Part 160 to apply to swap dealers and major 

swap participants, regardless of whether they are required to register with the CFTC.

When would the rules become effective?

The CFTC proposes to make the proposed regulations become effective no earlier than July 21, 2011, which is the 

designated transfer date of authority from various federal agencies to the Bureau.
#### In the Matter of Daniel Luizzi, Appellant, v Susan Collins, Respondent.

[877 NYS2d 346]—

In a child custody proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 6, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Sweeney, J.), entered December 31, 2007, which, after a hearing, dismissed his petition for a change of custody of the parties’ children.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

“The court’s primary concern in making a determination *1063regarding custody or visitation is the best interests of the child” *(Matter of Kilstein v MacDowell,*226 AD2d 727 [1996]; *see Matter of Lichtenfeld v Lichtenfeld,*41 AD3d 849, 849 [2007]). “To formulate a sound basis for its action, the court should seek the expertise of other professionals and ascertain the wishes of the children, particularly where they are of a sufficient age to articulate their needs and preferences to the court” *(Matter of Kilstein v MacDowell,*226 AD2d at 727). Here, the Family Court has conducted at least two sets of hearings over the course of several years and heard from numerous nonparty witnesses. The court ordered and reviewed forensic analyses and it ascertained the wishes of the teenage children. Contrary to the father’s contention, the Family Court’s determination has a sound and substantial basis in the record and it should not be disturbed *(id.).*

Moreover, “[t]he mere fact that the [attorney for the children] did not adopt a position that was favorable to [the father] does not demonstrate bias” *(Matter of Hanehan v Hanehan,*8 AD3d 712, 714 [2004]). “The role of the [attorney for the children] is to be an advocate for and represent the best interests of the children], not the parents” *(Matter of Brittany W.,*25 AD3d 560 [2006]; *see Matter of Hanehan,*8 AD3d at 714). Contrary to the father’s contention, the attorney for the children took an active role in the proceedings and adequately represented the children’s interests *(see Matter of Echols v Weiner,*46 AD3d 825 [2007]; *Matter of West v Turner,*38 AD3d 673, 674 [2007]; *Matter of King v King,*266 AD2d 546, 547 [1999]). Mastro, J.P., Dickerson, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 121 (Friday, June 22, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 33544]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15728]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Administration on Aging


Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Submission to 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for Clearance; Comment 
Request; Reinstatement of Previously Approved Information Collection

AGENCY: Administration on Aging, HHS.
    The Administration on Aging (AoA), Department of Health and Human 
Services, provides an opportunity for comment on the following proposal 
for the collection of information in compliance with the Paperwork 
Reduction Act (PRA; Pub. L. 96-511):
    Title of Information Collection: Reporting Requirements for the 
Alzheimer's Disease Demonstration Grants to States Program and GPRA 
data.
    Type of Request: Reinstatement of a previously approved collection 
for which approval has expired.
    Use: Data on persons served, services provided, and program staff 
will be collected semi-annually from participants in the Alzheimer's 
Disease Demonstration Grants to States Program. Data will be used for 
program modification and evaluation, annual Department reports, and a 
final report to Congress as set forth by congressional statute.
    Frequency: Semi-annually.
    Respondents: Agencies of State Governments that have been 
designated by the governor as the sole applicant for the State and who 
have applied for a grant under this program.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 50/year.
    Total Estimated Burden Hours: 1,000/year.
    Additional Information or Comments: The Administration on Aging 
plans to submit to the Office of Management and Budget for 
reinstatement of a previously approved collection for which approval 
has expired, for the Alzheimer's Disease Demonstration Grants to States 
Program, pursuant to requirements set forth by congressional statute. 
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 60 days of the publication of this 
notice directly to the following address: Office of Program 
Development, Administration on Aging, Attention: Melanie Starns, 330 
Independence Avenue, SW., Rm 4270, Washington, DC 20201.

    Dated: June 18, 2001.
Norman L. Thompson,
Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Aging.
[FR Doc. 01-15728 Filed 6-21-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4154-01-U
Exhibit 4.2

 

CHINA ONLINE EDUCATION GROUP

 

 

 

	
Number
    	
 
    	
Shares
    


 

- _______ Class A Ordinary Shares -

 

Incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands

Share capital is US$150,000 divided into (i) 1,000,000,000 Class A Ordinary Shares of US$0.0001 par value each; (ii) 350,000,000 Class B Ordinary Shares of US$0.0001 par value each; and (iii) 150,000,000 shares of a par value of US$0.0001 each of such class or classes (however designated) as the board may determine in accordance with Article 9 of the Articles of Association of the above-named Company.

 

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT ____________________ is the registered holder of _____________ Class A Ordinary Shares in the above-named Company subject to the Fifth Amended and Restated Memorandum and Articles of Association thereof.

 

EXECUTED on behalf of the said Company on the        day of                                                 by:

 

 

 

DIRECTOR                 ___________________________________