alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 90/2015

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 90 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5817 March 2015 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 90

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5817 March 2015

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Council |
| 2015/C 090/01 | Notice for the attention of one person subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP and Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus | 1 |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 090/02 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |
| 2015/C 090/03 | SESAR Joint Undertaking — Revised budget 2014 and budget 2015 | 3 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

2015/C 090/01

Notice for the attention of one person subject to the restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2012/642/CFSP and Council Regulation (EC) No 765/2006, concerning restrictive measures in respect of Belarus

1

European Commission

2015/C 090/02

Euro exchange rates

2

2015/C 090/03

SESAR Joint Undertaking — Revised budget 2014 and budget 2015

3

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 090/04 | Call for proposals under the work programme of the ECSEL Joint Undertaking | 23 |
| 2015/C 090/05 | Call for proposals under the work programme of the ECSEL Joint Undertaking | 23 |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2015/C 090/06 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7556 — Eurazeo/Groupe Crédit Agricole/SCI Future Way/SCI New Way) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 24 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Commission

2015/C 090/04

Call for proposals under the work programme of the ECSEL Joint Undertaking

23

2015/C 090/05

Call for proposals under the work programme of the ECSEL Joint Undertaking

23

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2015/C 090/06

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.7556 — Eurazeo/Groupe Crédit Agricole/SCI Future Way/SCI New Way) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

24

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN
EXHIBIT 32.01



CERTIFICATION OF PRESIDENT PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the Annual Report of Morgan Stanley Diversified
Futures Fund L.P. (the ?Partnership?) on Form 10-K for the period
ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the ?Report?), I, Walter Davis,
President of Demeter Management Corporation, the general partner
of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:
(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
results of operations of the Partnership.








By:	  /s/	Walter Davis

Name:		Walter Davis
Title:	President

Date:		March 28, 2008
September 18, 2015

Mr. Hugo Mariucci

Mariucci Video Productions

216 Chestnut Street

Virginia, MN 55792

Dear Mr. Mariucci :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

p art 21 ; § § 45.23, 45.29

, 61.113, 61.133

, 91.9

, 91.109, 91.119

, 91.121, 91.151

, 91.203

, Subpart E (91.401− 91.417) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains

why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We received your exemption request on behalf of filed in D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 2166

posted on June 16, 2015 , but we are unable to process your request any f urther. Your petition

does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the

request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.ht ml . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation A dministration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the re quested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure s34
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

**The Board of Directors**

**Garden FreshRestaurant Corp.**

 

We consent to incorporation by referencein the registration statements (No. 333-93568, No. 333-57615, No. 333-93359, No. 333-48440 and No. 333-100538) on Form S-8 of Garden Fresh Restaurant Corp. of our report dated November 17, 2003, relating to the balance sheets of Garden FreshRestaurant Corp. as of September 30, 2002 and 2003, and the related statements of operations, shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended September 30, 2003, which report appears in the September30, 2003, annual report on Form 10-K of Garden Fresh Restaurant Corp. 

 

**KPMG LLP**

**San Diego, California**

**November 25, 2003**
# July 2021
Verizon South Inc.



EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Verizon South Inc. (the Company) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the
Company certifies 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) 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 results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods presented in the Report.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





|Dated: November 12, 2003 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/    LAWRENCE T. BABBIO, JR.
|------------------------ |  |  |  |  |  | ------------------------------
|                         |  |  |  |  |  |                               
|                         |  |  | 
|Dated: November 12, 2003 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/    JOHN F. KILLIAN        
|                         |  |  |  |  |  |                               



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to
Verizon South Inc. and will be retained by Verizon South Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-88805) pertaining to the Borders Group, Inc. 1998 Stock Option Plan,
the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-79559) pertaining to the Borders
Group, Inc. Management Stock Purchase Plan, Borders Group, Inc. Stock Option
Plan, Borders Group, Inc. Employee Stock Purchase Plan, Borders Group, Inc.
Director Stock Plan, Borders Group, Inc. 401(k) Plan, and Borders Group, Inc.
Savings Plan for Employees Working in Puerto Rico, the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-114403) pertaining to the Borders Group, Inc. 2004 Long-Term
Incentive Plan and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-120367)
pertaining to the Borders Group, Inc. Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Plan
of our reports dated April 5, 2006, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Borders Group, Inc. and Borders Group, Inc.'s management's
assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and
the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Borders Group,
Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended January 28,
2006.



                                    /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Detroit, Michigan
April 5, 2006
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 464 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 464

     Designating July 12, 1994, as ``Public Health Awareness Day''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 23, 1994

  Mr. Dingell (for himself, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Moorhead, and Mr. Bliley) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                    on Post Office and Civil Service

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
     Designating July 12, 1994, as ``Public Health Awareness Day''.

Whereas the modern United States Public Health Service was shaped by legislation 
        passed by the Congress 50 years ago this month;
Whereas the Public Health Service has been at the vanguard of health: protecting 
        the public from disease and epidemics and, in conjunction with the 
        States, maintaining public health capacity;
Whereas the Public Health Service is a world leader in addressing the challenge 
        of promoting and protecting health in America and worldwide;
Whereas the Public Health Service protects the safety and quality of foods, 
        drugs, and medical devices for all Americans;
Whereas the Public Health Service provides emergency health services in response 
        to America's natural disasters;
Whereas the Public Health Service is a world leader in health and medical 
        research;
Whereas the Public Health Service is a world leader in the effort to immunize 
        children and adults against preventable infectious diseases both in the 
        United States and worldwide;
Whereas the Public Health Service is a world leader in the fight against AIDS 
        and AIDS-related illnesses; and
Whereas the Public Health Service is comprised of 50,000 dedicated 
        professionals: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That July 12, 1994, is designated as ``Public Health 
Awareness Day'', and the President is authorized and requested to issue 
a proclamation calling upon the people of the United States to observe 
that day with appropriate activities.

                                 <all>
```
* * * PUBLIC NOTICE * * *
M c ELMO CREEK UNIT OIL PRODUCTION FACILITY REQUEST FOR PUBLIC COMMENT UNDER SECTION 106 OF THE NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT
On October 15, 2014 , t he United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 9 proposed to amend the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit, in accordance with PSD air quality regulations (40 CFR 52.21), for the McElmo Creek Unit Oil Production Facility (MC U Facility), an existing oil and gas production operation. The MCU Facility is owned , in partnership with the Navajo Nation Oil and Gas Company, and operated by the Resolute Natural Resources Company. The facility is located in Section 31, Township 40 South, Range 25 East within the Four Corners Area on the Navajo Nation Reservation near the town of Aneth, San Juan County, Utah. EPA’s proposed a mendments to the PSD permit include adding pollution limits, terms and conditions for the already existing Main Flare at the MCU Facility pursuant to a federal Consent Decree (United States v. Mobil Exploration and Pro ducing U.S. Inc., Case No. 2:05

- CV

- 319 , filed June 8, 2005). These pollution limits, terms and conditions include Best Available Control Technology emission limitations for nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds for the Main Flare at the MCU Facility

. Additionally, EPA is amending the permit to remove certain equipment, and the applicab le permit requirements that apply because this equipment has been shut down and removed from the site

. O ther tha n the potential replacement of the fan on the Main Flare to provide better pollution control, this permit action does not authorize any new construction or modification of existing equipment at the MCU Facility. In accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the implementing regulations at 36 CFR 800, EPA is seeking public comment on the October 15, 2014 , proposed permit action’s potential to directly (e.g. physically) and indirectly (e.g. visually) affect historic properties , and information on potential adver s e effects to historic properties and/or traditional cultural properties (e.g. archeological sites)

. Historic properties include places, structures, objects, etc. that are listed on, or eligible for inclusion on, the National Register of Historic Pla ces. Historic properties include artifacts, records, and remains that are related to and located within such properties. For more information about th e permit action , visit http://www2.epa.gov/caa

- permitting/prevention

- significant

- deterioration

- psd

- permits

- tribal

lands

- issued

- region

- 9 , or contact Shah eerah Kelly at (415) 947

- 4156 or R9airpermits@epa.gov

. More information about the NHPA process can be found at http://www.achp.gov/docs/CitizenGuide.pdf

. Please submit any comments to Shaheerah Kelly, Air Division (AIR

- 3), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, C alifornia 94105

- 3901 or by electronic mail to R9airperm its@epa.gov by November 3, 2015.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7777

HENRY GILMORE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

HENRY BROWN, Correctional Officer, 3rd Shift;

DEZERREL WALKER, Correctional Officer, Lieutenant, 3rd Shift,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-63-5-BO)

Submitted: February 11, 1999 Decided: February 25, 1999

Before ERVIN, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry Gilmore, Appellant Pro Se. Sharon Coull Wilson, OFFICE OF THE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Henry Gilmore appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of

the district court. See Gilmore v. Brown, No. CA-98-63-5-BO

(E.D.N.C. Nov. 4, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

AFFIRMED
#### BISBEE *v.*WETMORE.

1. Judgment — Summary Judgment — Attorney and Client — Attorneys’ Eees.

Where, in action by attorneys for compensation for services rendered, no contract for stated amount was claimed and defendant] in opposition to motion for summary judgment, filed affidavit of merits questioning value of services rendered, court was in error in entering summary judgment.

2. Appeal and Error — Dismissal oe Appeal — Reconsideration.

If reconsideration of motion to dismiss appeal is desired, motion therefor must be timely made.

3. Same — Delay in Piling Motion to Reconsider.

Where motion for reconsideration of denial of motion to dismiss appeal was not filed until over year later, and after case had been submitted, motion was not timely made, and court declines to’ reconsider.

Appeal from Jackson; Simpson (John), J.

Submitted January 7, 1932.

(Docket No. 70, Calendar No. 35,115.)

Decided March 2, 1932.

Assumpsit by Leland S. Bisbee and others, co-partners as Bisbee, McKone, Wilson & King, against Earl P. Wetmore for attorney’s services. Summary judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant appeals.

Reversed, and new trial granted.

*Bisbee, McKone, Wilson & King,*for plaintiffs.

*Theodore M. Joslin,*for defendant.

Wiest, J.

Plaintiffs are attorneys at law and brought this suit to recover compensation for serv*179ices rendered defendant in a divorce suit. Defendant appeared, and, under plea of the general issue, gave notice of recoupment. Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment. Defendant filed an affidavit of merits.

No contract for a stated amount of compensation was claimed, and charges were made for services rendered. Defendant, by his affidavit, questioned the value of services claimed to have been rendered by plaintiffs.

The court was in error in entering a summary judgment.

In *Baxter*v. *Szucs,*248 Mich. 672, we pointed out the inapplicability of summary judgment procedure to an action by attorneys to recover fees, and what we there said applies here.

After this case was submitted to this court plaintiffs filed a “supplemental brief,” asking reconsideration of their motion to dismiss the appeal, which was denied January 5,1931. Reconsideration, if desired, must be timely moved. No new reasons are alleged nor points other than those we then passed upon are submitted. We decline to reconsider our former adjudication.

The judgment is reversed, with costs to defendant, and the case remanded to the circuit court for trial on the merits.

Clark, C. J., and McDonald, Potter, Sharpe, North, Pead, and Butzel, JJ., concurred.
#### ELIAS KNUTSON v. WILLIAM WELLENDORF.1

January 21, 1916.

Nos. 19,392—(63).

Boundary.

Findings in favor of plaintiff sustained by the evidence. [Reporter.]

Action in the district court for Big Stone county to determine the boundary line between the lands of plaintiff and defendant. The case was tried before Flaherty, J., who made findings and ordered judgment in favor of plaintiff. Defendant’s motion to amend the findings was denied'. Defendant’s motion for a new trial was denied. From the judgment entered pursuant to the order for judgment, defendant appealed.

Affirmed.

*Murphy <& Anderson and Kaeroher <& Freerks,*for appellant.

*Cliff & Purcell,*for respondent.

1

 Reported in 155 N. W. 905.

Per Curiam.

Action to determine the boundary line between the lands owned by the plaintiff and defendant. After a protracted trial in which a large volume of evidence was taken, and after the trial judge had made a personal visit to the premises, to enable him the better to apply the evidence of the numerous witnesses, findings were made establishing the line in accordance with plaintiff’s contention. Defendant appealed from the judgment rendered on the findings.

Our conclusion is that the findings of the trial court are not so clearly against the evidence as to justify this court in declaring them wholly unsupported. The record contains over 600 pages of testimony, which we have read carefully in connection with the arguments of counsel. It would serve no useful purpose as a precedent or otherwise to attempt a review of the evidence, and we affirm the judgment, with the statement that a full consideration of the evidence leads us to that conclusion. Wilson v. Palmgren, 125 Minn. 519, 145 N. W. 1077; Lieder v. Schroeder, 116 Minn. 534, 133 N. W. 1134.

Judgment affirmed.
# C_2023035EN.01001701.xml

| 30.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/17

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 8 December 2022 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — VB v GUPFINGER Einrichtungsstudio GmbH

(Case C-625/21) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 93/13/EEC - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Unjustified withdrawal from a contract by the consumer - Term determining the trader’s right to compensation declared unfair - Application of supplementary national law)

(2023/C 35/18)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: VB

Defendant: GUPFINGER Einrichtungsstudio GmbH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts

must be interpreted as meaning that, where an indemnification clause of a sales contract has been declared unfair and, consequently, void and that contract is capable of continuing in existence without that clause, the seller or supplier which has imposed that term is precluded from being able to claim, in an action for damages based exclusively on a supplementary provision of national contract law, compensation for the loss or harm caused as provided for in that provision, which would have been applicable in the absence of that clause.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 24.1.2022.

---
#### John B. WILLIAMS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 40428.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 18, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 15, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 240 So.2d 214.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.