alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016212EN.01000101.xml

| 14.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 212/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8013 — PitPoint/Primagaz/PitPoint.LNG JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 212/01)

On 7 June 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in Dutch language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8013. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8013. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
Exhibit 24.1

POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned hereby constitutes and appoints Robert E. Sulentic, Arlin E. Gaffner and J. Christopher Kirk and each of
them, his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact, with full power of substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, to sign on his behalf, as a director
or officer, or both, as the case may be, of Trammell Crow Company, a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"), the Corporation's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2002, and to sign any or all amendments to such Form 10-K, and to file the same, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in connection therewith, with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said attorneys-in-fact, and each of them with or without the others, full power and authority to do and perform each and every
act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that each of
said attorneys-in-fact or their substitute or substitutes may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

| |  | /s/ DEREK R. MCCLAINDerek R. McClain
| |  | ------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
# C_2015022EN.01000201.xml

| 23.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

22 January 2015

(2015/C 22/02)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1618 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 136,70 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4454 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,76440 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,4405 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 0,9943 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,8310 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,900 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 315,56 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2997 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5023 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,7128 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4299 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4353 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,0074 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5344 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5479 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 259,38 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,3367 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,2144 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6985 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 481,47 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,1617 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 51,373 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 74,7800 |
| THB | Thai baht | 37,851 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,9955 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,0639 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 71,5192 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1618

JPY

Japanese yen

136,70

DKK

Danish krone

7,4454

GBP

Pound sterling

0,76440

SEK

Swedish krona

9,4405

CHF

Swiss franc

0,9943

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,8310

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,900

HUF

Hungarian forint

315,56

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2997

RON

Romanian leu

4,5023

TRY

Turkish lira

2,7128

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4299

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4353

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,0074

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5344

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5479

KRW

South Korean won

1 259,38

ZAR

South African rand

13,3367

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,2144

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6985

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 481,47

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,1617

PHP

Philippine peso

51,373

RUB

Russian rouble

74,7800

THB

Thai baht

37,851

BRL

Brazilian real

2,9955

MXN

Mexican peso

17,0639

INR

Indian rupee

71,5192

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 10, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 10, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17I0070. WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP et al. v. CATHERINE BENSON.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of State Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

15C00537
#### PHILLIPS’ HEIRS *vs.*SWART et al.

APPEAL PROM CIRCUIT COURT, WINNEBAGO COUNTY.

Heard September *21,*1859.]

[Decided January *4, 1860.*

*Bilk of Exceptions.*

Where judgment has been rendered in the circuit court, and no case or bill of exceptions is made, so as to enable the supreme court to examine the merits of the case, on the testimony, the judgment will be affirmed. And there would seem to be no difference in this respect between an action at law or in equity.

This was an action commenced by James M. Phillips, against Henry Swart and David P. Smith. The substantial allegations in the bill are, that the complainant owned the equitable title or interest to certain real estate, by a contract with one Daugherty, by the terms of which he was to pay $3,000; $2,500 of which he had paid. He sold one-half of *427the property to Henry Swart, for the sum of #1,500 ; at which time it was agreed that they should enter into partnership, in the lumber business; and soon after,,Phillips and Swart entered into an agreement, by which it was agreed that Swart was to pay to Daugherty the balance, #500, on the contract, and take the conveyance in his own name, as security; and on the payment of said sum to Swart, he was to deed one-half of the property to Phillips. In accordance with the contract, Swart paid Daugherty, and took a conveyance of the other half of the mill. The answer denies any agreement to enter into partnership, and also denies any agreement to take the title to the other half of the mill for security of the #500 advanced.

After issue was joined, Phillips died, and the action was prosecuted by his heirs. Considerable testimony was taken, tending to establish the facts charged in the bill of complaint, and the complaint was dismissed on the hearing. There was no finding by the court, nor bill of exceptions taken. From the judgment of the court, the complainant appealed.

*G.*Bouch, for the respondent.

*j3. K.*Brush, for the appellant.

*By the Court,*

Dixon, C. J.

The judgment of the circuit court, in this case, must be affirmed. There is no case made, or bill of exceptions settled, as required by law, so as to enable us to look into the evidence, or examine the merits, except so far as they appear from the pleadings. The pleadings show no error, or cause for reversal.

Judgment affirmed.
#### Hubbard and another vs. Galusha.

*Hailwre of coimdm’ation.*— Pm'tnw's—knowledge *of one, knowledge of all.*

1. Where a promissory note was given for fruit trees, with a verbal understanding that only those trees were to be paid for that lived: *Held,*that, the trees not living, the maker of the note could defend against the payee on the ground of failure of consideration.

2. The payee being one of the copartners in whose name the suit was brought, the same defense was available against them.

3. Notice or knowledge affecting one of several copartners, affects all.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Eau Claire*County.

*399This action was commenced in a justice’s court, by *Hubbard*and Bennett, copartners, on a promissory note executed by the defendant to Bennett, or bearer. The nature of the defense relied on appears from the opinion. The case was tried by a jury before the justice, and a verdict found for the plaintiffs, for $7.44, damages. Erom a judgment on the verdict the defendant appealed to the circuit court, where the cause was heard on the original papers and return of the justice, and the judgment reversed. The plaintiffs then appealed to this court.

*Cousins & Bartlett*and *J. E.*Stillman, for appellants.

*A.*Meggett, for respondent.

Cole, J.

The defense to the note sued on was a partial or total failure of consideration. There is no doubt but this defense was available, since the note was given to one of the plaintiffs, who was a partner of the other. Of course, this defect in 'the note might be shown as between the original parties, or as to one taking the same with notice thereof; and it is a familiar rule of law that notice or knowledge of any one partner is notice or knowledge affecting all the rest, or rather the partnership as a whole. The want or failure of consideration might, then, be insisted on as a defense to the action. Erom the return of the justice of the testimony taken on the trial, it appears that the note was given for some fruit trees. It likewise appears that the understanding was, between the maker and payee, that only those trees were to be paid for which lived. There is no conflict of testimony upon this point, as we understand the return. And the proof is that but four of the trees lived, the price of which was a dollar. Now the verdict of the jury is entirely unsupported by the evidence. The jury erred in allowing the plaintiffs pay for trees which died, and which the defendant was not to pay for.

*By the Court.*— The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.
Motion Granted; Order filed June 7 , 2016

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 15

- 00805

- CR

____________ EDWARD BEALEFIELD , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1464575



### ORDER
Appellant Edward Bealefield was convicted by a jury of “ continuous sexual abuse of a young child

. ” Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 21.02. The trial court’s judgment erroneously listed the offense as aggravated sexual assault of a child under 14 years of age . On February 29, 2016, a ppellant ’s counsel filed a brief with a single issue : the judgment should be modified to reflect that appellant was convicted of
continuous sexual abuse of a child. The State filed a brief in which it a grees that the judgment contains an erroneous recitation and should be modified

.Appellant filed a pro se motion in which he asks this court to strike appellant’s

brief and order counsel to file a brief addressing his conviction. The motion is granted.

Co unsel has not raise d issues addressing appellant’s conviction yet has not
followed the procedures of Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 742

– 44 (1967)

. W e strike appellant’s brief filed February 29, 2016, and ORDER that appellant’s counsel, David L. Garza
, file a brief in this court on or before July 7, 2016
, in compliance with the appellate rules . Should counsel determine there are no legal points arguable on their merits
, then counsel must file a brief in accordance with the
Anders procedure

. PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices McCally and Brown.
# ... REGISTER 

# MEDIA A GANNETT COMPANY 

# AFFIDAVIT OFPUBLICATION State of Iowa County of Polk, ss.: The undersigned, being first duly sworn on oath, states that The Des Moines Registerand Tribune Company, a corporation duly organized and existing underthe laws ofthe State of Iowa, with its principal place ofbusiness in Des Moines, Iowa, the publisherof THE DES MOINES REGISTER newspaper ofgeneral circulation printed and published in the City ofDes Moines, Polk County, Iowa, and that an advertisement, a printed copy ofwhich is attached as Exhibit "A" and made part ofthis affidavit, was printed and published in The Des Moines Register on the following dates: Ad No. StartDate: 0000695490 09/04/15 CopyofAdvertisement Exhibit "A" Run Dates: Cost: 09/04/15, 09/21/15 $37.82

Subscribed and sworn to before me by said affiant this 22th day ofSeptember. 2015
Qjcin and.for PolkCounty, Iowa

### ~t-"''"t**~** 

## ANDREA HOUGHTON

# {~ ..... •.r,C 

## tOM.MISSION NO.. 7539.56

## "'~ 

# * COMMISSIONEXPIRES

.. 101'1" 

### Ic 1LJ- 

### '251 ?!>,-, uPUBLIC NOTICE Notice is hereby given that .on Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 9;30 a.m. in Room 120 Polk County Administrative o{tlce building, 111 Court Avenues, Des Moines, Iowa, the Polk CountY Board of Supervisors acting In· its capacity as the Local Board of Health will hold a hearing on proposed amendments to Polk County Local Board of Health Rules and Regulations, Chapter V- Air Pollution. The proposed amendments are a routine update for consistency with 567 Iowa Administrative Code (lAC) references, definitions, procedures, standards and exemptions. The proposal amends the following sections; 5-1, 5-2, 5-16, 5-20, 5-33 and 5-39. The summary of proposed regulation amendments (Exhibit A) Is available on file in the Polk County Auditor's Office located at the Polk County Administration Building, 111 Court Avenue, Des Moines, Iowa, Room 230. Anyone desiring to comment on the proposed amendments may appear and be heard. By: Jamie Fitzgerald Polk County Auditor
#### Marguerite Coppa, Respondent, v Paul Fabozzi, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

[773 NYS2d 604]

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Paul Fabozzi appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Maltese, J.), dated April 15, 2003, as granted those branches of the plaintiffs motion which were for summary judgment and to dismiss the counterclaim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The mortgagee established her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by presenting the mortgage, the unpaid mortgage note, and an affidavit attesting to the mortgagors’ default *(see EMC Mtge. Corp. v Riverdale Assoc.,*291 AD2d 370 [2002]; *Federal Home Loan Mtge. Corp. v Karastathis,*237 AD2d 558, 559 [1997]). The affirmative defenses raised by the mortgagor are unfounded and, thus, were properly stricken by the Supreme Court *(see Fabozzi v Coppa,*5 AD3d 722 [2004] [decided herewith]).

Moreover, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the counterclaim because it, too, was without merit, since another action between substantially the same parties involving the same cause of action was pending *(see*CPLR 3211 [a] [4]; *Fabozzi v Coppa, supra).*Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Townes and Crane, JJ., concur.
# C_2014154EN.01000301.xml

| 22.5.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 154/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 154/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

21 May 2014

2014/C 154/03

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3676 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 138,18 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4649 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,80940 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0008 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2216 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,1390 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,467 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 304,48 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1888 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4325 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,8841 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4819 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4908 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,6029 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5968 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7139 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 404,45 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,2463 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,5253 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6153 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 739,09 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,3982 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 59,919 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 47,0732 |
| THB | Thai baht | 44,411 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,0288 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,6564 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 80,3875 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3676

JPY

Japanese yen

138,18

DKK

Danish krone

7,4649

GBP

Pound sterling

0,80940

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0008

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2216

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,1390

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,467

HUF

Hungarian forint

304,48

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1888

RON

Romanian leu

4,4325

TRY

Turkish lira

2,8841

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4819

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4908

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,6029

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5968

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7139

KRW

South Korean won

1 404,45

ZAR

South African rand

14,2463

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,5253

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6153

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 739,09

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,3982

PHP

Philippine peso

59,919

RUB

Russian rouble

47,0732

THB

Thai baht

44,411

BRL

Brazilian real

3,0288

MXN

Mexican peso

17,6564

INR

Indian rupee

80,3875

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

The Board of Directors
Turbodyne Technologies Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(No. 333-64133) on Form S-8 of Turbodyne Technologies Inc. of our report dated
March 15, 1999 relating to the consolidated balance sheet of Turbodyne
Technologies Inc. as of December 31, 1998, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for the two
years ended December 31, 1998, which report appears in the December 31, 1999
annual report on Form 10-K of Turbodyne Technologies Inc.

Our report dated March 15, 1999, contains an explanatory paragraph that states
that the Company has suffered recurring losses, has used cash in its operating
activities in each of the last three years, has violated covenants of its debt
facilities, has received an adverse award and a judgment in the aggregate
amount of $7.1 million related to an arbitration matter and a building lease,
respectively, is subject to class-action lawsuits brought against it by certain
of its stockholders, and based upon the Company's projected cash flows for the
ensuing year, it will be required to seek additional financing in order to
continue its present operations. These matters raise substantial doubt about
the Company's ability to continue as a going concern. The consolidated
financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the
outcome of these uncertainties.



KPMG LLP

Los Angeles, California
April 13, 2000
----

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

I, Rajesh Raniga, Chief Financial Officer of EYI Industries,  Inc. (the “Company”), hereby 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:

|   | (i)    | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB/A of the Company,        for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2004, 2004, and to which this certification        is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the “Report”) fully complies        with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange        Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
|   | (ii)   | (the information contained in the Report fairly        presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results        of operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                                                               |

|   | By:    | */s/ Rajesh Raniga*     |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|   |   |                         |
|   | Name:  | Rajesh Raniga           |
|   | Title: | Chief Financial Officer |
|   | Date:  | August 19, 2004         |

*A signed original of this written statement required by  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Company  and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon request.*

*This certification accompanies the Form 10-QSB to which  it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission  and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under  the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made  before or after the date of the Form 10-QSB), irrespective of any general incorporation  language contained in such filing.*

----