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 State

          - [Public Notice: 10092]

# SUMMARY:

The Department of State announces the renewal of the Charter of the International Security Advisory Board (ISAB).

The purpose of the ISAB is to provide the Department with a continuing source of independent insight, advice, and innovation on all aspects of arms control, disarmament, nonproliferation, and international security, and related aspects of public diplomacy. The ISAB will remain in existence for two years after the filing date of the Charter unless terminated.

For more information, please contact Christopher M. Herrick, Executive Director of the International Security Advisory Board, Department of State, Washington, DC 20520, telephone: (202) 647-9683.

Christopher M. Herrick,

Executive Director, International Security Advisory Board, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2017-17612 Filed 8-21-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4710-35-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas A. Tribunella, Appellant.

[856 NYS2d 362]

*1185Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of assault in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.10 [1]). We agree with defendant that reversal is required based on Supreme Court’s refusal to give an intoxication charge. “A charge on intoxication should be given if there is sufficient evidence of intoxication in the record for a reasonable person to entertain a doubt as to the element of intent on that basis” *(People v Perry,*61 NY2d 849, 850 [1984]; *see People v Gaines,*83 NY2d 925, 927 [1994]). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to defendant, as we must (see *Gaines,*83 NY2d at 926-927), we conclude that he established his entitlement to the charge. The testimony that defendant left a bar shortly before it closed for the night, was “extremely intoxicated,” smelled of alcohol, was at times incoherent, and was physically impaired by his intoxication was sufficient to meet the “relatively low threshold” for entitlement to an intoxication charge *(People v Rodriguez,*76 NY2d 918, 920 [1990]; *cf. People v Shaw,*8 AD3d 1106, 1106-1107 [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 681 [2004]; *People v Hill,*255 AD2d 969 [1998], *Iv denied*92 NY2d 1050 [1999]).

In light of our determination that a new trial is warranted, we need not reach defendant’s remaining contention. Present— Hurlbutt, J.P., Smith, Centra, Lunn and Fahey, JJ.
September 3, 1998



Securities and Exchange Commission
Branch of Document Control
450 Fifth Street N.W.
Washington, DC 20549

VIA EDGAR

Subject: Certification under Rule 497(j) - The AAL Target Funds
         File No. 33-12911, File No. 811-5075


Dear Ladies and Gentleman:

The  undersigned  hereby  certifies that the form of Prospectus and Statement of
Additional  Information  that would have been filed  pursuant to 497(c) upon the
Post-Effective  Amendment No. 29 to the Registrant's  registration  statement on
Form N1-A would not have differed from that  contained in said amendment to such
registration statement that was filed electronically on August 31, 1998.

Please direct any comments or questions  concerning this certification to Steven
J. Fredricks, Esq. at (920) 734-5721 extension 6864.

Sincerely,

/s/ Steven J. Fredricks

Steven J Fredricks
Associate Attorney, AAL Capital Management Corporation
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Auditors

To
the Board of Directors and
Stockholders of Inamed Corporation:

We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Forms S-3 and S-8 (Nos. 333-107528, 333-105021,
333-43072, 333-32226, 333-88541, 333-38698 and 333-33498) of Inamed Corporation of our report dated February 19, 2004 relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of Inamed Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2003 and 2002 and the related consolidated statements of income, stockholders' equity and comprehensive
income, and cash flows for the years then ended, and the related financial statement schedule, which report appears in the 2003 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Inamed Corporation. Our
report refers to our audit of the adjustments that were applied to revise the 2001 consolidated financial statements, as more fully described in Notes 1 and 2 to the consolidated financial statements.
However, we were not engaged to audit, review, or apply any procedures to the 2001 consolidated financial statements other than with respect to such adjustments.

/s/
KPMG LLP

Los
Angeles, California
March 12, 2004

---

QuickLinks
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1995
<CASH>                                             444
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      782
<ALLOWANCES>                                        35
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   845
<PP&E>                                           1,463
<DEPRECIATION>                                     594
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   1,720
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              829
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            1,608
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       (757)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     1,720
<SALES>                                          4,931
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,931
<CGS>                                            5,098
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,098
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   703
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (870)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (870)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (870)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.24)
        

</TABLE>
No. 1274.

#### Ray *v.*Ragen, Warden.

June 10, 1946.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Criminal Court of Cook County, Illinois, denied.
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

|                                                   |                                                                                       |                                        |
|--------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|
|  Date:  April                  17, 2007 |                                                                                       |
|                                              |                                                                                  |                                   |
|                                                   |                                                                                       | /s/ Marvin                  S. Hausman |
|                                                   | Marvin                  S. Hausman                                                         |
|                                                   | Chief                    Executive Officer(Principal Executive                    Officer) |
#### SEFF v. GENERAL OUTDOOR ADVERTISING CO., Inc. et al.

Civ. No. 25967.

United States District Court N. D. Ohio, E. D.

Sept. 12, 1950.

See, also, D.C., 11 F.R.D. 59a

Samuel T. Gaines, Cleveland, Ohio, Carl M. Myers, Akron, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Raymond T. Jackson, Cleveland, Ohio, for General Outdoor Advertising Co.

Fred J. Perkins and McKeehan, Merrick, Arter & Stewart, all of Cleveland, Ohio, for Outdoor Advertising, Inc.

Ernest Scott, Philadelphia, Pa., for Central Outdoor Advertising Co., Inc.

JONES, Chief Judge.

This is a private anti-trust action. Plaintiff asked for and received leave to file an amended complaint and add a new party defendant. This new defendant, Central Outdoor Advertising Company, now moves to dismiss this action as to it because the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

In deciding such motions the complaint must be construed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Plaintiff in paragraph 11 of the complaint charges all defendants with monopolizing interstate trade and with conspiracy among themselves to. place .unlawful restraints upon trade and commerce among the several states with such illegal conspiracy being directed against plaintiff. This charge alone states in bare outline the claim against defendant Central and is sufficient to warrant denial of the motion.

But plaintiff has expanded on this charge and it appears, reading the complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiff, that defendant General Outdoor Advertising Company and Central are two of the major outdoor advertising companies in the Country. While General owns a substantial part of the stock of Central, General and Central’s areas of business are noncompetitive. However, plaintiff and General do compete in the Akron area. Central, when it contracts for use of its advertising space with national advertisers, insists that these national advertisers use General’s facilities in the areas outside of Central’s operating area or be denied the use of Central’s facilities. Under such a contractual exaction, if true, General and Central effectively can and do exclude plaintiff from doing business with the national advertisers, *597the alleged life-blood, of the outdoor advertising business; and if it can be proved, has the appearance of a violation of the antitrust acts.

It is my judgment that this motion must be denied.
#### Patricia A. CINQUE, Plaintiff, v. WHITMAN’S CHOCOLATES and Bakery and Confectionery Workers International Union of America Local 6, Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 82-2299.

United States District Court, E.D. of Pennsylvania.

April 2, 1984.

*8Affirmed, 3d Cir., 755 F.2d 917.

Harry C. Citrino, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Thomas Langenberg, St. Louis, Mo., Mark D. Terstsky, Norristown, Pa., for Whitman’s Chocolates.

Warren J. Borish, Meranze, Katz, Spear & Wilderman, Philadelphia, Pa., for Local 6.

ORDER

DITTER, District Judge.

AND NOW, this 22nd day of March, 1984, the summary judgment motions of both defendants are granted. Plaintiff brought this action under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185. Whitman’s is alleged to have wrongfully discharged plaintiff and the union is alleged to have breached its duty of fair representation. Both defendants have moved for summary judgment on the basis that plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

All claims brought under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act must be brought within six months after exhaustion of internal union procedures. *DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters,*462 U.S. 151, 103 S.Ct. 2281, 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983). Exhaustion is deemed to occur “when it becomes clear that further internal [union] appeals would be futile.” *Scott v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters,*725 F.2d 226, 229 (3d Cir.1983). This six month statute of limitations may be applied retroactively. *Id.*at 228-29.

In this case the complained of conduct culminated with the union, through its agent David Goodwin, refusing to file a grievance on plaintiff’s behalf. This occurred on March 30, 1980. *{See*“Brief on *9behalf of Plaintiff” at 4-5). Even accepting plaintiffs conclusory allegation that counsel for the union was contacted “during the latter part of 1980” but refused to respond after representing that an agreement would be worked out, (see Complaint ¶¶ 21 & 22), it should have been obvious by early 1981 that the union was not taking further action. Because the suit was not filed until May 4, 1982, over six months elapsed after it became obvious that further union appeals would be futile. For this reason plaintiffs claim is time barred. *DelCostello, supra.*
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document




































 



 
 

  Exhibit 10.24    
    


 
 

  Schedule of 2009 Executive Officer Compensation    
    


        The following sets forth the annual salary and target bonus, expressed as a percentage of annual salary, for our executive officers as
of the date of filing of the Form 10-K to which this exhibit relates: 



										
	Name



 
	 	Title 	 	Annual

Salary 	 	Target

Award % 	 
	Paul S. Viviano	 	Chairman and Chief Executive Officer	 	$	600,000	 	 	85	%
	Michael F. Frisch	 	President, Alliance Imaging	 	$	300,000	 	 	75	%
	Richard J. Hall	 	President, Alliance Oncology	 	$	275,000	 	 	70	%
	Howard K. Aihara	 	Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer	 	$	286,000	 	 	75	%
	Eli H. Glovinsky	 	Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary	 	$	290,000	 	 	65	%
	Christopher J. Joyce	 	Executive Vice President, Mergers and Acquisitions	 	$	265,000	 	 	90	%
	Nicholas A. Poan	 	Senior Vice President, Corporate Finance, and Chief Accounting Officer	 	$	195,000	 	 	65	%














QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.24


Schedule of 2009 Executive Officer Compensation
November 30, 1999


To the Board of Directors of
Capital Income Builder, Inc.

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements
of Capital Income Builder, Inc. (the "Fund") for the year ended
October 31, 1999, we considered its internal control, including
control activities for safeguarding securities, in order to
determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing
our opinion on the financial statements and to comply with the
requirements of Form N-SAR, not to provide assurance on internal
control.

The management of the Fund is responsible for establishing and
maintaining internal control.  In fulfilling this
responsibility, estimates and judgments by management are
required to assess the expected benefits and related costs of
controls.  Generally, controls that are relevant to an audit
pertain to the entity's objective of preparing financial
statements for external purposes that are fairly presented in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.  Those
controls include the safeguarding of assets against unauthorized
acquisition, use or disposition.

Because of inherent limitations in internal control, errors or
fraud may occur and not be detected.  Also, projection of any
evaluation of internal control to future periods is subject to
the risk that it may become inadequate because of changes in
conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and operation
may deteriorate.

Our consideration of internal control would not necessarily
disclose all matters in internal control that might be material
weaknesses under standards established by the American Institute
of Certified Public Accountants.  A material weakness is a
condition in which the design or operation of one or more of the
internal control components does not reduce to a relatively low
level the risk that misstatements caused by errors or fraud in
amounts that would be material in relation to the financial
statements being audited may occur and not be detected within
a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing
their assigned functions.  However, we noted no matters
involving internal control and its operation, including controls
for safeguarding securities, that we consider to be material
weaknesses as defined above as of October 31, 1999.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of
management and the Board of Directors of the Fund and the
Securities and Exchange Commission and is not intended to be
and should not be used by anyone other than these specified
parties.


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
Los Angeles, California
Form of Waiver, executed by each of the Company's senior executive officers



 Exhibit 10.3 
 WAIVER 
 In consideration for the benefits I will receive as a result of my employer’s participation in the
United States Department of the Treasury’s TARP Capital Purchase Program, I hereby voluntarily waive any claim against the United States or any state or territory thereof or my employer or any of its directors, officers, employees and agents
for any changes to my compensation or benefits that are required in order to comply with Section 111 of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, as amended (“EESA”), and rules, regulations, guidance or other
requirements issued thereunder (collectively, the “EESA Restrictions”). 
 I acknowledge that the EESA Restrictions may require modification
of the employment, compensation, bonus, incentive, severance, retention and other benefit plans, arrangements, policies and agreements (including so-called “golden parachute” agreements), whether or not in writing, that I have with my
employer or in which I participate as they relate to the period the United States holds any equity or debt securities of my employer acquired through the TARP Capital Purchase Program and I hereby consent to all such modifications. I further
acknowledge and agree that if my employer notifies me in writing that I have received payments in violation of the EESA Restrictions, I shall repay the aggregate amount of such payments to my employer no later than fifteen business days following my
receipt of such notice. 
 This waiver includes all claims I may have under the laws of the United States or any other jurisdiction related to the
requirements imposed by the EESA Restrictions (including without limitation, any claim for any compensation or other payments or benefits I would otherwise receive absent the EESA Restrictions, any challenge to the process by which the EESA
Restrictions were adopted and any tort or constitutional claim about the effect of the foregoing on my employment relationship) and I hereby agree that I will not at any time initiate, or cause or permit to be initiated on my behalf, any such claim
against the United States, my employer or its directors, officers, employees or agents in or before any local, state, federal or other agency, court or body. 
 In witness whereof, I execute this waiver on my own behalf, thereby communicating my acceptance and acknowledgement to the provisions herein. 
  

			
	Respectfully,
	
	  

	Name:	 	
	Title:	 	
	Date:
exhibit1010.htm


    EXHIBIT
10.10



     

    FIRST
AMENDMENT TO THE LIN TV CORP.

    THIRD
AMENDED AND RESTATED

    2002
NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR STOCK PLAN

    


    


    The LIN TV Corp. Third Amended and
Restated Non-Employee Director Stock Plan (the “Plan”) is amended as
follows:

    


    1.           Section
6(g) of the Plan is hereby replaced in its entirety with the
following:

    


    
      	
               
      

            	
              “(g)

            	
              Exchange
      Programs.  The Committee may, without stockholder approval,
      cancel any outstanding stock option and grant in exchange therefore a new
      Stock Option or Stock Award covering the same or a different number of
      shares of common stock and having an exercise price per share lower than
      the then-current exercise price per share of the cancelled Stock Option;
      provided, however, that the exercise price per share of the new Stock
      Option or Stock Award shall not exceed the Fair Market Value of a share of
      Common Stock on the date of the grant of such Stock Option or Stock
      Award.”

            


    

    


    Approved
and adopted by the Board of Directors of LIN TV Corp. on December 23,
2008.
**ICIM Services***Partners in Risk Management*

 

November 19, 2012

 

Mr. Michael Lewis  Chief Compliance Officer  Saturna Capital Corporation  1300 N. State Street  Bellingham, WA 98225

**RE: ICI Mutual Investment Company Blanket Bond No. 89265112B ("Bond")****D&O/E&O Liability Insurance Policy No. 89265112D ("Policy")**

Dear Mr Stroh:

As we have previously discussed, we understand that you prepare a proposed  allocation of premium between the joint insureds on the above referenced Bond  and Policy. I am hereby confirming that the share of total premium for Blanket  Bond and D&O/E&O coverage allocated to each Investment Company Insured  is less than the premium such company would have to pay if it had purchased  separate policies from ICI Mutual.

Further, you have asked that we provide the following estimates for individual  bonds and policies for the separate insureds in the chart below.  Please note  that these are not quotations, and do not include state premium tax amounts.  Should you wish to seek formal quotes for these options, please advise us  accordingly as additional underwriting will be necessary.

||
||
| **Individual Insured** | **Bond Limit** | **Bond         Premium** | **D&O/E&O         Policy Limit** | **Policy Premium** |
| Amana Mutual Funds Trust | $3,525,000 | $20,500 | $3,000,000 | $70,000 |
Exhibit
10.5.3

    


    

    


    Via
Facsimile and Federal Express Overnight Delivery

    


    March 6,
2009

    


    Mr. Jeff
Moery

    Vice
President

    Aventine
Renewable Energy – Aurora West, LLC

    1300
South 2nd
Street

    Pekin, IL
61554

    Facsimile:
(309) 478-1526

    
    

     

    
      	 	

              Re:

            	

              EPC
      Contract – Aurora West Ethanol Project

            
	 	 	

              Change
      Order dated December 31, 2008

            


    

     

    Dear
Jeff:

    


    On March
3, 2009, Kiewit notified you of Aventine’s default of its payment obligations
under the EPC Contract, as modified by the referenced Change
Order.  As of today’s date, Aventine has failed to cure this
default.

    


    By this
letter, Kiewit notifies you of its termination of the Engineering, Procurement
and Construction Services Fixed Price Contract between Kiewit Energy Company and
Aventine Renewable Energy – Aurora West, LLC dated May 31, 2007.  The
termination is effective March 6, 2009.

    


    Nothing
in this letter is intended to waive any right or remedy Kiewit Energy Company
may have.

    


    Please
contact me if you would like to discuss the matter further.

    


    Sincerely,

    


    /s/ Mike
Casey

    


    Mike
Casey

    Vice
President

    


    
      	
              cc: 

            	
              Brad
      Kaufman

            
	 	Elizabeth
      Gage


    

     

     

     

    
 

    KIEWIT
ENERGY GROUP

    7906 North
Sam Houston Parkway West, Suite 300, Houston, TX 77064

    (281)
517-8900           (281)
517-8906 fax