alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 279/2023

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 279 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 668 August 2023 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 279

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 668 August 2023

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2023/C 279/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11010 – INEOS / SINOPEC / ETHYLENE JV) (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2023/C 279/02 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11026 – PARTNERS GROUP / GHO / STERLING PHARMA) (
  1
  ) | 2 |
| 2023/C 279/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11020 – KKR / APRIL) (
  1
  ) | 3 |
| 2023/C 279/04 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11094 – CD&R / STONE POINT / FOCUS) (
  1
  ) | 4 |
| 2023/C 279/05 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11173 – HEDIN / TORPEDO) (
  1
  ) | 5 |

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2023/C 279/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11010 – INEOS / SINOPEC / ETHYLENE JV) (
  1
  )

1

1

2023/C 279/02

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11026 – PARTNERS GROUP / GHO / STERLING PHARMA) (
  1
  )

1

2

2023/C 279/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11020 – KKR / APRIL) (
  1
  )

1

3

2023/C 279/04

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11094 – CD&R / STONE POINT / FOCUS) (
  1
  )

1

4

2023/C 279/05

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.11173 – HEDIN / TORPEDO) (
  1
  )

1

5

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2023/C 279/06 | Euro exchange rates – 7 August 2023 | 6 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2023/C 279/06

Euro exchange rates – 7 August 2023

6

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2023/C 279/07 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.11158 – DEUTSCHE BÖRSE / SIMCORP) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 7 |
| 2023/C 279/08 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.11197 – SCL / ETHIAS / ETHIAS LEASE JV) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 9 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2023/C 279/07

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.11158 – DEUTSCHE BÖRSE / SIMCORP) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

7

2023/C 279/08

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.11197 – SCL / ETHIAS / ETHIAS LEASE JV) – Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

9

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
Motion granted in part and denied in part, and Order filed December 2, 2021. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-21-00143-CV

____________

RUHUL AMIN PARVEZ AHMED, Appellant

V.

KHALEDA PARVIN, Appellee

On Appeal from the 505th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 19-DCV-264584

ORDER

Before the court is a motion filed by appellant, proceeding pro se, asking for 

an extension to January 19, 2022 to file his brief, due to issues associated with 

COVID-19, a search for a residence, and a supposed discrepancy with the reporter’s 

record. The court hereby grants the motion and orders appellant to file his brief no 

later than January 19, 2022. No further extensions will be granted absent 

exceptional circumstances.

Appellant’s discussion of the reporter’s record merits further discussion in 

association with that request. Appellant claims that his extension is needed because, 

although he has a copy of the reporter’s record comprising transcriptions of trial 
2

court proceedings and copies of exhibits used in those proceedings, the record does 

not include video clips of those proceedings. The record reflects at least some of the 

proceedings occurred by Zoom or other methods of videoconference, but although 

there is no indication that the trial court retained a recording of such proceedings, 

the reporter’s record appears to comprise full, true, and correct transcripts of all 

hearings conducted by the trial court.1 As appellant has not clarified how 

videorecordings of the hearings would provide anything applicable to this appeal 

that is already provided by the written reporter’s record, the court sees no need to

take action on that issue.

Finally, appellant has requested counsel be appointed to represent him in this 

appeal. In civil cases, parties have no general right to counsel. See Travelers Indem. 

Co. of Conn. v. Mayfield, 923 S.W.2d 590, 594 (Tex. 1996). Appellant’s motion 

does not indicate this is an exceptional case warranting the appointment of counsel. 

See id. Accordingly, we deny appellant’s request for appointment of counsel.

For the reasons discussed above, the court grants appellant’s motion in part to 

the extent it requests an extension to file a brief, and denies appellant’s motion in 

part to the extent it requests appointment of counsel.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Zimmerer and Wilson.

1 Although appellant’s motion references an August 19, 2019 hearing for which there is no 

transcript, the trial court docket and a transcript of the trial court’s August 8, 2019 hearing indicates 

the August 19th proceeding was simply a meeting between the parties and the trial court to confirm 

several written temporary orders (which the trial court signed on August 19th) accurately reflected 

the trial court’s discussions and pronouncements made at the August 8th hearing. The docket also 

reflects appellant personally appeared before the trial court on August 19th in association with 

those temporary orders.
#### § 319.5 Public international organizations in which the U.S. participates by treaty or statute.

Organizations designated by the President as international organizations pursuant to the International Organizations Immunities Act are considered as public international organizations in which the United States participates by treaty or statute within the meaning of section 319(b) or the Act. For a list of such organizations see § 316.20(b) of this chapter. In addition, the following have been determined to be public international organizations within the purview of section 319(b) of the Act:

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

The United Nations and all agencies and organizations which are a part thereof.

The regional commissioner shall forward a copy of each decision regarding a public international organization to the Assistant Commissioner, Naturalization.

[32 FR 9635, July 4, 1967. Redesignated at 33 FR 255, Jan. 9, 1968. Further redesignated and amended at 56 FR 50489, Oct. 7, 1991]
#### § 650.303 Applicability.

The National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) in this subpart apply to all structures defined as highway bridges located on all public roads, on and off Federal-aid highways, including tribally-owned and federally-owned bridges, private bridges that are connected to a public road on both ends of the bridge, temporary bridges, and bridges under construction with portions open to traffic.
### §81a. Location and boundaries

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed to make an examination of Jamestown Island, parts of the city of Williamsburg, and the Yorktown battlefield, all in the State of Virginia, and areas for highways to connect said island, city, and battlefield with a view to determining the area or areas thereof desirable for inclusion in the said Colonial National Historical Park, not to exceed two thousand five hundred acres of the said battlefield or five hundred feet in width as to such connecting areas, and upon completion thereof he shall make appropriate recommendations to the President, who shall establish the boundaries of said national park by proclamation: Provided, That the boundaries so established may be enlarged or diminished by subsequent proclamation or proclamations of the President upon the recommendations of the Secretary of the Interior, any such enlargement only to include lands donated to the United States or purchased by the United States without resort to condemnation.

(July 3, 1930, ch. 837, §2, 46 Stat. 855; June 5, 1936, ch. 525, §2, 49 Stat. 1483.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 443a of this title.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Change of Name

Act June 5, 1936, changed "Colonial National Monument" to "Colonial National Historical Park".

#### **Executive Documents**

#### Boundaries of Park

Boundaries were established by Presidential Proc. No. 1929, Dec. 30, 1930, 46 Stat. 3041, and Proc. No. 2055, Aug. 22, 1933, 48 Stat. 1706.
(No. 77-CC-1218

#### Jessie Owens, Claimant, *v.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed September 18, 1978.*

Polos, C.J.

Claimant, an inmate of an Illinois penal institu*675tion, has brought this action to recover the value of certain items of personal property of which he was allegedly possessed while incarcerated. Claimant contends that the property in question was lost while in the actual physical possession of the State of Illinois, and that the State is liable as a bailee for the return of that property.

The record herein establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that in May, 1976, while confined at the Jdiet Correctional Center, Claimant purchased a radio at the inmate’s commissary for $39.00. On or about December 18, 1976, prison authorities took possession of that radio, and it has never been returned to Claimant.

This Court held in *Doubling v. State, 32 Ill.Ct.Cl.1,*deciding that the State has a duty to exercise reasonable care to safeguard and return an inmate’s property when it takes actual physical possession of such property during the course of the transfer of an inmate between penal institutions.

While bailment is ordinarily a voluntary contractual transaction between bailor and bailee, various types of constructive and involuntary bailments have been recognized:

> “A constructive bailment can be created between an owner of the property and one in possession thereof.” 4A Illinois Law and Practice 550, Bailments, citing *Chesterfield Sewer & Water, Inc., v. Citizens Insurance Co. of New Jersey, et al., 57 Ill. App. 2d 90, 207 NE2d 84.*

In *Chesterfield,*the Court quotes from *Woodson v. Hare, 244 Ala. 301, 13 So2d. 172, at 174,*as follows;

> “An actual contract or one implied in fact is not always necessary to create a bailment. Where, otherwise than by mutual contract of bailment, one person has lawfully acquired the possession of personal property of another and holds it under circumstances whereby he ought, upon principles of justice, to keep it safely and restore it or deliver it to the owner, such person and the owner of the property are, by operation of law, generally *676treated as bailee and bailor under a contract of bailment, irrespective of whether or not there has been any mutual assent, express or implied, to such relationship.”

The loss or damage to bailed property while in the possession of the bailee raises a presumption of negligence which the bailee must rebut by evidence of due care. The effect of this rule is not to shift the ultimate burden of proof from the bailor to the bailee, but simply to shift the burden of proceeding or going forward with the evidence.

At the trial of this cause the State presented no testimony to explain the disappearance of Claimant’s property, and presented no testimony of its freedom from negligence.

It is therefore ordered that Claimant be, and hereby is, awarded the sum of $39.00.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

              Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63
                      of Title 18 of the United States Code

      I, Barry S. Sternlicht, the Chief Executive Officer of Starwood Hotels &
Resorts Worldwide, Inc. ("Starwood"), certify that (i) the Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 (the "Form 10-K") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Starwood.
                                       /s/ Barry S. Sternlicht
                                       ------------------------------------
                                       Barry S. Sternlicht
                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                       Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc.

                                       February 26, 2003
United States 

Department of

Agriculture

Forest 

Service

Pacific 

Southwest

Region

April 2011

R5-MB-225

Final Environmental 

Impact Statement for 

Kings River 

Experimental Watershed 

Forest Health and 

Research Project 

Sierra National Forest, High Sierra Ranger District 

Fresno County, CA
2
3
4
Exhibit 23.1



                        Consent of Independent Accountants

We  hereby  consent  to the  incorporation  by  reference  in  the  Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No.  33-22068),  the  Registration  Statement on Form S-8
(No.  33-60278),  the  Registration  Statement on Form S-8 (No.  33-66124),  the
Prospectus  constituting  part of the  Registration  Statement  on Form S-3 (No.
333-03011),  and the Prospectus  constituting part of the Registration Statement
on Form S-3 (No. 333-17847) of our report dated February 26, 1999,  appearing on
page a-20 of the Annual Report to  Shareholders  in the Appendix to the Illinova
Corporation  Proxy Statement which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form
10-K.





/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

March 26, 1999
#### § 101.75 Affidavits.

An affidavit is; not inadmissible as such. Unless the presiding officer fixes other time periods affidavits shall be filed and served on the parties not later than 15 days prior to the hearing; and not less than 7 days prior to hearing a party may file and serve written objection to any affidavit on the ground that he believes it necessary to test the truth of assertions therein at hearing. In such event the assertions objected to will not be received in evidence unless the affiant is made available for cross-examination, or the presiding officer determines that cross-examination is not necessary for the full and true disclosure of facts referred to in such assertions. Notwithstanding any objection, however, affidavits may be considered in the case of any respondent who waives a hearing.
!

!

"
	"	#$# ! $%&'%()*+'

! ,-./

0.$ !

                !

!

	
# !

!

1.# !

!

$ ! ..1..

!

"
	"	#$# !

"$
#
	# !

!


-.$ !

                !





	




	





 
!
"" 

#

$%&&	$'

%(

)*+(% 
!

,


!
,-
.",!/0*1234!


5
+5
!!) 6),,
!


,-)

!
)

)

,
#

$%(7		&&	$'
(
)
!",)


&
))$$ !!/34*1220



,

,89*222*222+22

!

&
))$6)!!


*
!
!


)

,
!

)
:
!

8;*222*221+22#

Case 16-12380-BFK Doc 32 Filed 07/19/16 Entered 07/19/16 15:32:11 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 4
$%(7		&&	$'
))
,
$*(!

)

)",)
 


:!

()/34*1220*!

 

!,
:!(

)/34*122<
*

 !6


(!!

,
!!"
),

)

)
!

)
)))(*


!
=
,*
*
:)*
*
,,*)!



)*)!

)6!
%


 !


",,,!
))

)



7>3(



)6


6
?


#

$%(7		&&	$'
(
)
!!
$*


)

=



!

@!


)*!





))

))
!6)!6

,,!

)
!


=
!
)#

$%&&	$'
!):
)):,!
!!





)"
!
":
)
)

)



*
!
)"
!


,,

!

)!)

)


"*

$%&&	$'


,-)
)!
!



"*!
)!
!

!)
))A!

!)

,))))
)
,
,!
)"

!




)!)!B
)=

)*!
!)


6
):
))


))=)!"




*

)


1

Case 16-12380-BFK Doc 32 Filed 07/19/16 Entered 07/19/16 15:32:11 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 4
C	%	%*


)337+++941! 
)

!

!

)
#

$%(7		C	%	%*
")

!

!

:
)!
)

)!!
)!
D%))!
!




 !,,
66

),
*
!
*6




*)"



,,

!

),
,)
)

)

C!*
D%)!,,
)6!,,

,!)
)



)
!

!!))

)6!
%
!


D%)*!

)
)


@!),,


)

=)!6

),
#

$%(7		C	%	%*

,,
!")
"

,))))

!
)!

%E)6
)

*!)



))),)


)

)!

!,
)6

),



)
!6!)


!,
)!
!)!


%
6
)
!
)!
,
+)
)

)*"

)





)

)6

)
!

!,
)6

),
)))*


!


!*

)!
)


!,

6


%*
)
),!!
%,)

!6





!,
)!,*!!)))




)+

9

Case 16-12380-BFK Doc 32 Filed 07/19/16 Entered 07/19/16 15:32:11 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 4
%FGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG

            



$$2

.	..34-.52647

)"(

)F

  B)B5
+CH%    

.I+*?.J19<K3

5
+CH%*?.J92204

/+
*/+*?.J-3042

LCH%*&++

922$+I)

+*
12;

:!
*?


1193;

-29 K;0>1322

)"

!!F

!!F

B)B5
5
!!*)

5
5
!!*)

922$+I)




122

:!
*?1193;

-29 K;<>K222

;

Jul 19 2016

/s/ Brian F Kenney

Entered on Docket: July 19, 2016

Case 16-12380-BFK Doc 32 Filed 07/19/16 Entered 07/19/16 15:32:11 Desc Main

 Document Page 4 of 4
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of PremierWest Bancorp (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A,
Amendment No. 1, for the quarter ending March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James M. Ford, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                                       
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                             
|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company for the period certified.

This certification is being furnished solely to comply with the requirements of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and shall not be incorporated by reference into any of the Companys filings under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise be deemed to be filed as part of the Report or under such Acts.

|                    |                                                                       
|------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: June 11, 2009 | /s/ JAMES M. FORD
 James M. Ford
President
and Chief Executive Officer

---
**EXHIBIT 31.1****SARBANES-OXLEY SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**I, William H. Wilcox, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of United SurgicalPartners International, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material factnecessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report;  3. [Intentionally omitted]  4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internalcontrol over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the Registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the Registrant,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this reportis being prepared;  b) Designed such internal control over financialreporting, or caused such internal control overfinancial reporting to be designed under oursupervision, to provide reasonable assuranceregarding the reliability of financial reporting andthe preparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally acceptedaccounting principles;  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented inthis report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this report based onsuch evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in theRegistrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the Registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the Registrant’s fourthfiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) thathas materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the Registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and 5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, basedon our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of theRegistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknessesin the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the Registrant’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significantrole in the Registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting./s/ William H. Wilcox William H. Wilcox
#### Robert H. BAUGH; William P. Dorsey; Nick N. Westlund, Plaintiffs—Appellants, v. LOWNDES LAMBERT GROUP LTD., a foreign corporation; Lambert Fen-church Group PLC, a foreign corporation; Lioncover Insurance Company Ltd., a foreign corporation; Syndicate Underwriting Management Ltd., a foreign corporation; Eastgate Syndicate Management Ltd., a foreign corporation; Equitas Holdings Ltd.; Equitas Ltd.; Equitas Reinsurance Ltd.; Equitas Management Services Ltd.; Equitas Policyholders Trustee Ltd., all foreign corporations, Defendants, *608and Maxson Young Associates Inc., a foreign corporation, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 00-35884. D.C. No. CV-99-00881-MJP.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 10, 2002.*

Decided May 14, 2002.

Before RYMER, MCKEOWN, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Robert Baugh, William Dorsey and Nick Westlund appeal the district court’s Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of their claims against Maxson Young Associates (“MYA”). We affirm for reasons stated by the district court. They have failed to show that MYA owed them any duty and have failed to allege facts sufficient to sustain their claims for negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress. *See*Wash. Rev.Code §§ 48.17.050(2), 48.17.410.

Also, to the extent that the claims presuppose that there was coverage under the policy which MYA adjusted, they are precluded by collateral estoppel or *Rooker-Feldman. See Kelly v. Vons Cos.,*67 Cal. App.4th 1329, 79 Cal.Rptr.2d 763, 769 (1998) (issue preclusion); *Doe & Assocs. Law Offices v. Napolitano,*252 F.3d 1026, 1029-30 (9th Cir.2001) (“inextricably intertwined” test).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.