alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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 Agriculture

###### Forest Service 

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393) the Kootenai National Forest's Lincoln County Resource Advisory Committee will meet on Wednesday, June 17, 2009 at 6 p.m. at the Forest Supervisor's Office in Libby, Montana for a business meeting. The meeting is open to the public. 

# DATES:

June 17, 2009. 

# ADDRESSES:

Forest Supervisor's Office, 31374 U.S. Hwy 2, Libby, Montana.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Janette Turk, Committee Coordinator, Kootenai National Forest at (406) 283-7764, or e-mail                         *jturk@fs.fed.us.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Agenda will include a vote on all 2009 project proposals from the Rexford, Fortine, Three Rivers, and Libby Ranger Districts and receiving public comment. If the meeting date or location is changed, notice will be posted in the local newspapers, including the Daily Interlake based in Kalispell, Montana. 

Dated: June 9, 2009. 

Paul Bradford, 

Forest Supervisor. 

 [FR Doc. E9-14078 Filed 6-16-09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
#### BOWLES, Price Administrator, v. ECONOMY UTILITIES CO.

No. 3567.

District Court, W. D. Missouri, W. D.

Jan. 19, 1946.

Dick F. Bennett, Dist. Enforcement Atty., and Eugene F. O’Keefe and Harold Masters, Enforcement Attys., all of Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.

Schultz & Bodney, of Kansas City, Mo., for defendant.

REEVES, District Judge.

The plaintiff’s motion for production of documents and records as provided for in Rule 34, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, appears to be proper. The records sought are described as follows:

> “All sales records covering sales of all commodities sold by Defendant from February 26, 1944 to February 26, 1945.”

It is charged in the complaint that:

> “Defendant has violated the regulation in that it has failed and refused to keep.current price records showing how various items were priced as required by Section 1499.12 of the above regulation.”

And

> “The defendant has further violated the regulation by its failure to comply with Section 1499.3c in properly determining its maximum prices.”

These averments are put in issue by the defendant. The defendant admits the jurisdiction of the court and the authority of the administrator. The question is whether the defendant has violated the regulations, and whether an examination of its records would disclose the fact. Such records would be competent evidence in the trial of the case and under said rule the plaintiff is entitled to have them produced. An order will be made accordingly.

The plaintiff makes suggestions for a pretrial conference. It requires no argument or the citation of authorities to establish such right. This is furnished by the rules and the parties, therefore, are now notified to appear on February 4th for all the purposes of a pretrial conference.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         172,576
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,767
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (1,000)
<INVENTORY>                                     92,683
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               300,720
<PP&E>                                          91,350
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (24,777)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 379,209
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          856,696
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,266
<OTHER-SE>                                    (610,753)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   379,209
<SALES>                                        102,960
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               105,193
<CGS>                                           41,147
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               162,378
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (112,952)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
No. 5048.

(Court of Appeal, Parish of Orleans.)

#### U. MARINONI, JR., Receiver, vs. JOSEPH NUCCIO.

G. M. Hornor for plaintiff and appellant.

Poster, Milling, Godehaux & Brian for defendant and appellee.

*444ST. PAUL, J.

This is a suit on an alleged subscription for stock. Defendant admits that he agreed verbally to take one share in the corporation, hut denies that he ever agreed to take twenty as now called upon to pay for. He further admits that he signed the instrument herein sued on, which on its face now calls for twenty shares, but avers that he was induced to sign th'e same by the fraudulent representation that he was merely giving his name and address, he not being able to read without his spectacles, which were not handy at that moment.

Defendant produced two witnesses who testified that they were present or near by when he signed the paper and heard him repeat a number of times that he was subscribing for but one share.

For the plaintiff one witness testifies that defendant signed the subscription blank only after the same had been filled out and read to him., and with the full knowledge that he was obligating himself for twenty shares.

But this is contradicted by another witness, also produced by plaintiff, who testifies that defendant agreed to take hut one share, and that, when the subscription was signed, the number of shares was left blank.

Very soon afterwards a controversy arose between defendant and the corporation about the number of shares for which he had subscribed. The directors did not yield expressly to his contention that he had subscribed for but one share, nor did they accept his offer to pay for a single share. But, on the other hand they did not tender him certificates for twenty shares or press the matter, and his name was dropped from the list of directors, although the charter had named him a member of that board.

The trial Judge concluded that defendant had established his version of the transaction by a preponderance of evidence sufficient to meet the burden of proof which *445rested upon him, and gave judgment accordingly.

May 30, 1910.

Rehearing refused June 23, 1910.

Whilst the evidence, coming to us in dead type and not from the mouth of the living witnesses, may not appear entirely convincing, our learned brother of the District Court saw and heard defendant and the witnesses in his favor and evidently believed them.

The opportunity which he thus had of observing their appearance and demeanor on the stand, entitles his estimate of their credibility to much greater weight than any which we ourselves might venture.

We may not lightly disregard his conclusions in that respect, and the record does not justify us in holding that he has manifestly erred.

The judgment appealed from must, therefore, be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Godchaux, J. recused.
#### In the Matter of Jose M. Poulose, Appellant, v Nirav R. Shah, as Commissioner of Health, et al., Respondents.

Decided September 11, 2012

Appeal dismissed, without costs, by the Court of Appeals, sua sponte, upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 4 A0 59 0 . J ESSI CA L. DELONG v . NI CHOLAS A. DELONG

Th i s cas e was do ck et ed b y t h is co u rt o n No v em b er 1 4 , 2 0 2 3 , an d ap p el l an t ’ s b ri e f an d en um erat i o n s o f erro r were d u e Decem b er 4

, 2 0 2 3

. A s o f t h e d at e o f t h i s

o rd er, ap p el l an t s t i l l h as n o t fi l ed a b ri ef an d en u m erat i o n o f e r r o rs an d h as n ot

req u es t ed an ex t en si o n o f t i m e i n wh i ch t o d o s o. Acco rd i ng l y , t h i s ap p eal is h ereb y
DISM ISSED as ab an d on ed p u rs u an t t o Co u rt o f Ap p eal s Ru les 1 3 an d 2 3

.

C o u rt o f A p p e al s o f th e S ta te o f G e o rg i a C l e rk ’ s O ffi c e , A tl an ta ,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i fy th a t th e a b o v e i s a tru e e x tra c t fro m th e m i n u te s o f th e C o u rt o f A p p e a l s o f G e o rg i a

. W i tn e s s m y si g n a tu re an d th e s e a l o f s a i d c o u rt h e re to a ffi x e d th e d a y a n d ye ar l a s t ab o v e w ri tte n

.

, C l e rk

.

December 14, 2023

12/14/2023
[973 NYS2d 186]

#### In the Matter of Jenee M. Gadsden (Admitted as Jenee Moreen Gadsden), a Suspended Attorney, Respondent. Departmental Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department, Petitioner.

First Department,

October 22, 2013

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Jorge Dopico, Chief Counsel, Departmental Disciplinary Committee,*New York City *(Naomi F. Goldstein*of counsel), for petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.

*66OPINION OF THE COURT

Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to the practice of law in the State of New York by the First Judicial Department on July 14, 1997, under the name Jenee Moreen Gadsden. At the times relevant to this proceeding, respondent maintained an office for the practice of law within the First Judicial Department.

The Departmental Disciplinary Committee (Committee) seeks an order, pursuant to Rules of the Appellate Division, First Department (22 NYCRR) § 603.4 (g), disbarring respondent from the practice of law. Respondent was initially suspended on April 2, 2009 as part of a mass suspension, for failure to file registration statements and pay biennial registration fees (64 AD3d 187 [1st Dept 2009]). By order entered December 13, 2012, she was further suspended, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (e) (1) (i) for willful failure to cooperate with the Committee’s sua sponte investigation into allegations that she was practicing law while suspended (103 AD3d 1 [1st Dept 2012]).

On December 28, 2012, the Committee served respondent, with a notice of entry of this Court’s December 13, 2012 suspension order by mailing same by first-class mail and certified mail return receipt requested. Respondent has not responded, or applied to the Committee or this Court for a hearing or reinstatement, although she was served with this motion and more than six months have elapsed since December 13, 2012 *(see Matter of Reis,*105 AD3d 62 [1st Dept 2013]; *Matter of Claffey,*99 AD3d 201 [1st Dept 2012]; *Matter of Millstone,*98 AD3d 329 [1st Dept 2012]). Moreover, respondent has not filed an affidavit of compliance with the Court’s suspension order as required under 22 NYCRR 603.13 (f).

Accordingly, the Committee’s motion to disbar respondent, pursuant to 22 NYCRR 603.4 (g), should be granted and respondent’s name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective immediately.

Gonzalez, EJ., Saxe, Freedman, Richter and ManzanetDaniels, JJ., concur.

Respondent disbarred, and her name stricken from the roll of attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York, effective the date hereof.
28774 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 115 / Wednesday, June 17, 2009 / Notices 

written views in Docket FAA–2006– 

25755. The FAA does not intend this 

request for the views of interested 

persons to address any issues related to 

the existing final rule or any future 

congestion management rule. Therefore, 

any submission to the current docket 

should be limited to the proposed 

extension of the December 2006 order. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on June 11, 

2009. 

Rebecca MacPherson, 

Assistant Chief Counsel for Regulations. 

[FR Doc. E9–14168 Filed 6–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Fiscal Service 

Surety Companies Acceptable on 

Federal Bonds: Termination—Lincoln 

General Insurance Company 

AGENCY: Financial Management Service, 

Fiscal Service, Department of the 

Treasury. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This is Supplement No. 15 to 

the Treasury Department Circular 570, 

2008 Revision, published July 1, 2008, 

at 73 FR 37644. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874–6850. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is 

hereby given that the Certificate of 

Authority issued by the Treasury to the 

above-named company under 31 U.S.C. 

9305 to qualify as acceptable surety on 

Federal bonds is terminated effective 

June 30, 2009. Federal bond-approving 

officials should annotate their reference 

copies of the Treasury Department 

Circular 570 (‘‘Circular’’), 2008 

Revision, to reflect this change. 

With respect to any bonds, including 

continuous bonds, currently in force 

with above listed Company, bondapproving officers should secure new 

bonds with acceptable sureties in those 

instances where a significant amount of 

liability remains outstanding. In 

addition, in no event, should bonds that 

are continuous in nature be renewed. 

The Circular may be viewed and 

downloaded through the Internet at 

http://www.fms.treas.gov/c570. 

Questions concerning this notice may 

be directed to the U.S. Department of 

the Treasury, Financial Management 

Service, Financial Accounting and 

Services Division, Surety Bond Branch, 

3700 East-West Highway, Room 6F01, 

Hyattsville, MD 20782. 

Dated: June 11, 2009. 

Kent Kuyumjian, 

Comptroller and Deputy CFO. 

[FR Doc. E9–14162 Filed 6–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–35–M 


dwashington3 on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
EXHIBIT 21


   SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT


        The Company has the following subsidiaries including significant
   subsidiaries as defined in Regulation S-X, each incorporated in the
   jurisdiction stated opposite its name.  All of the following subsidiaries
   are 100% owned by the Company.  The Company has additional subsidiaries
   which, if considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, would not
   constitute a "significant subsidiary" as such term is defined in
   Regulation S-X.




   Name of Subsidiary                       Jurisdiction of Incorporation

   Bandag A.G.   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Switzerland
   Bandag Canada Ltd.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Canada
   Bandag Europe N.V.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Belgium
   Bandag Licensing Corporation.   . . . . . . . . . . . . Iowa
   Bandag Incorporated of S.A.
     (Proprietary) Limited . . . . . . . . . . . . South Africa
   Bandag New Zealand Limited  . . . . . . . . . .  New Zealand
   Bandag do Brasil Ltda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Brazil
   Bandag B.V. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Netherlands
   Bandag de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.  . . . . . . . . . . . Mexico
   BTC, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Delaware
   Tire Distribution Systems, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . Delaware
   J.W. Brewer Tire Co., Inc.  . . . . . . . . . . . . Colorado
   Joe Esco Tire Co.   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Oklahoma
   Sound Tire, Inc.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Washington
   Southern Tire Mart, Inc.  . . . . . . . . . . .  Mississippi
   Universal Tire, Inc.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  Tennessee
EX-4.13



 Exhibit 4.13 

 

					
	 BMS Audit (NSW-VIC) Pty Ltd
 (Formerly named BDO Audit (NSW-VIC) Pty Ltd)
	 		  	 Level 19, 2 Market Street

Sydney NSW 2000
 GFO Box 2551

Sydney NSW 2001
 Australia


 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission 
 Office of the Chief Accountant 
 100 F Street, NE 

Washington, DC 20549 
 26 October 2012

 Re: Novogen Limited 
 File No.
0-29962 
 Dear Sir or Madam: 
 We BMS
Audit (NSW-VIC) Pty Limited formerly BDO Audit (NSW-VIC) Pty Limited have read Item 16F of Form 20-F of Novogen Limited dated October 26, 2012 and agree with the statements concerning our Firm contained therein. 

Very truly yours, 
  

			
		 	

 BMS Audit (NSW-VIC) Pty Limited 
 BMS Audit (NSW-VIC) Pty Ltd ABN 17 114 673 540
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis Panel, June 22, 2009, 8 a.m. to June 23, 2009, 6 p.m., Bethesda Marriott, 5151 Pooks Hill Road, Bethesda, MD, 20814 which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on March 31, 2009, 74 FR 6014571.                

This notice is amended to change this meeting from a two day to a one day meeting ending June 22, 2009 at 6 p.m. The meeting is closed to the public.

Dated: June 4, 2009.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. E9-13680 Filed 6-10-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
In the Missouri Court of Appeals

Eastern District

MARCH 15, 2016

THE FOLLOWING CASES WERE AFFIRMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 84.16(b) 

OR RULE 30.25(b).

1. ED102416 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V ANTAWAN T. ROSS, APP

2. ED102513 CHARLES HERVEY, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES

3. ED102624 BRIAN EVANS, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES

4. ED102629 BACKES & TOELKE ARGI PRODUCT RES V MIKUS FARMS APP

5. ED102722 KEVIN THOMPSON, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES

6. ED102807 ALBERT KILLIAN, JR., APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES

7. ED102815 JACQUELINE BARON, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES

8. ED102824 JAMES MEADORS, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES

9. ED102915 STATE OF MISSOURI, RES V CHAD W. JONES, APP

10. ED102934 DEVION RUSSELL, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES

11. ED102974 KAMECHIA MAY, APP V MEDICREDIT, INC. & DES RES

12. ED102987 C. FORTENBERRY, APP V BOARD OF EDUCATION, RES

13. ED103071 RONALD LEWIS, APP V BUILDING BUTLERS & DES RES

14. ED103137 DAVID ROLAND, APP V DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, RES

15. ED103268 PAUL STEWART, APP V STATE OF MISSOURI, RES
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 29, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 131831 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, JEROME HOLLOWAY, Justices Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 131831 COA: 270025 Muskegon CC: 05-044206-AH DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the July 20, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d1120 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.

November 29, 2006

Clerk
Exhibit 10(iii).5

BALDOR ELECTRIC COMPANY

2009 BONUS PLAN

FOR OFFICERS AND KEY MANAGERS

Plan
Administration

The Board of Directors of the Company has sole responsibility for adopting, reviewing and revising the Companys Bonus Plan and
all its provisions annually.

Plan Participants

Participants include Officers and Key Managers of the Company as approved by the Board of Directors annually. Participation in the Bonus Plan does not constitute a guarantee of employment and incentive awards for plan
participants whose employment is terminated for any reason shall forfeit their rights to the Bonus. Participants who retire or go on disability during the plan year will not normally receive a prorated portion of their bonus earned.

Bonus Payment Date

The bonus will be paid in a
lump sum as soon as practical after the Companys financial results for the applicable year have been certified by the Companys external auditors.

Bonus Formula

The formula used in the Plan is based on the Companys Sales and Profit Plan for each year the Plan is
implemented. The formula is constructed so a bonus (using the percentage (%) as defined below) of base compensation will be earned when the specific goal is met. The formula for 2009 will be as specified below.



|                            |  |           |             |   |      |   |             |         |  |   |             |  
|--------------------------- |  | --------- | ----------- | - | ---- | - | ----------- | ------- |  | - | ----------- | -
|                            |  | Threshold |             |   | Plan |   |             | Stretch | 
|Net earnings                |  | $         | xxx million |   |      | $ | xxx million |         |  | $ | xxx million |  
|Applicable Bonus Percentage |  |           | 5           | % |      |   | 10          | %       |  |   | 20          | %

The Applicable Bonus Percentage is 5% upon achieving the Threshold net earnings, an additional 5% upon achieving
the Plan net earnings, an additional 10% upon achieving the Stretch net earnings, and an additional 1% for every $1 million of net earnings achieved in excess of the Stretch net earnings.

For net earnings between Threshold and Plan, the Bonus earned will be calculated on a straight line pro-rata basis and for net earnings between Plan and Stretch, the
Bonus earned will also be calculated on a straight line pro-rata basis.



|                    |  |   |  |                                                        
|------------------- |  | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------
|The bonus payment = |  |   |  | Participants base compensation for the applicable year
|                    |  | x |  | Applicable Bonus Percentage