alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 50 (Friday, March 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 12251]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6454]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Special Emphasis Panel in Geosciences; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in the Geosciences (1756).
    Date and time: April 1-2, 1997, 8:30 A.M.-5:00 P.M.
    Place: National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), 1850 
Table Mesa Drive, Boulder, CO 80303 and the University Corporation 
for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), 3300 Mitchell Lane, Boulder, CO 
80301.
    Type of meeting: Closed.
    Contact person: Dr. Clifford Jacobs, Section Head for the UCAR 
and Lower Atmospheric Facility Oversight Section, Division of 
Atmospheric Sciences, Room 775, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone number is (703) 306-
1521.
    Purpose of meeting: Site visit and review of UCAR/NCAR Advanced 
Studies Program.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate UCAR/NCAR Advanced Studied 
Program.
    Reason for closing: The materials being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data; and personal information 
concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters 
are exempted under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the Government 
Sunshine Act.

    Dated: March 10, 1997.
Linda Allen-Benton,
Deputy Director, Division of Human Resource Management, Acting 
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-6454 Filed 3-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11201-11202]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6053]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Docket C-3704]

Montana Associated Physicians, Inc., et al.; Prohibited Trade 
Practices, and Affirmative Corrective Actions

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Consent order.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In settlement of alleged violations of federal law prohibiting 
unfair or deceptive acts or practices and unfair methods of 
competition, this consent order prohibits, among other things, two 
Montana-based organizations from entering or attempting to enter into 
any agreement with physicians to: Negotiate or refuse to deal with any 
third-party payer; determine the terms on which physicians deal with 
such payers; or fix the fees charged for any physician's services. In 
addition, the consent order prohibits the respondents from advising 
physicians to raise, maintain or adjust the fees charged for their 
medical services, or encouraging adherence to any fee schedule for 
physician's services.

DATES: Complaint and Order issued January 13, 1997.\1\

    \1\ Copies of the Complaint, the Decision and Order, and 
Commissioner Azcuenaga's statement are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, H-130, 6th Street and 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20580.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Leibenluft, FTC/S-3115, Washington, DC 20580. (202) 326-2756.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On Monday, November 4, 1996, there was 
published in the Federal Register, 61 FR 56682, a proposed consent 
agreement with analysis In the Matter of Montana Associated Physicians, 
Inc., et al., for the purpose of soliciting public

[[Page 11202]]

comment. Interested parties were given sixty (60) days in which to 
submit comments, suggestions or objections regarding the proposed form 
of the order.
    No comments having been received, the Commission has ordered the 
issuance of the complaint in the form contemplated by the agreement, 
made its jurisdictional findings and entered an order to cease and 
desist, as set forth in the proposed consent agreement, in disposition 
of this proceeding.

(Sec. 6, 38 Stat. 721; 15 U.S.C. 46. Interprets or applies sec. 5, 
38 Stat. 719, as amended; 15 U.S.C. 45)
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-6053 Filed 3-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
```
No. 11-535.

#### Arneson, County Attorney, Blue Earth County, Minnesota, et al. *v.*281 Care Committee et al.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-10976.

#### Fair *v.*Byars, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections, et al.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
No. 11-11100.

#### Hines *v.*Kane, Warden.

C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                     Exhibit  23



                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (Files No. 33-49805 and No. 333-52690) of Rochester Gas
and Electric Corporation and in the Registration Statement on Form S-8
(File No. 333-22139) of RGS Energy Group, Inc. of our report dated February 1,
2001 relating to the financial statements and financial statement schedule of
RGS Energy Group, Inc. and of Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, which
appears in the Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2000




Rochester, New York
February 13, 2001
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 11164]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5949]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP97-260-000]


ANR Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas 
Tariff

March 5, 1997.
    Take notice that, on February 28, 1997, ANR Pipeline Company (ANR) 
tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised 
Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheet, proposed to become 
effective March 1, 1997:

Twenty-sixth Revised Sheet No. 18

    ANR states that the above-referenced tariff sheet is being filed to 
implement the annual reconciliation of the recovery of its Above-Market 
Dakota Costs, as required by its tariff recovery mechanism. ANR advises 
that the filing proposes a negative reservation surcharge adjustment of 
($0.072) applicable to its currently effective, firm service Rate 
Schedules. This negative surcharge is proposed to return to ANR's 
customers, over the twelve month period of March 1, 1997 to February 
28, 1998, the $2.5 million of Above-Market Dakota Cost overcollections, 
inclusive of interest, which are reflected in the filing, along with 
$1.3 million, inclusive of interest, of refunds associated with Dakota 
above-market costs applicable to the first two quarterly Dakota 
filings, which were recently reduced as a result of the Commission's 
final order in Opinion No. 410 approving ANR's Settlement Agreement 
with Dakota.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commissions 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion 
to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-5949 Filed 3-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717--M
No. 11-10708.

#### Martinez *v.*United States District Court for the District of New Mexico.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certio-rari denied.
# C_2022148EN.01003401.xml

| 4.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 148/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 148/34

---

Action brought on 4 February 2022 — Eurecna v Commission

(Case T-69/22)

(2022/C 148/45)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Eurecna SpA (Venice, Italy) (represented by: R. Sciaudone, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision to offset debts contained in the letter of the Commission of 25 November 2021, by which the Commission decided to recover the amount of EUR 22 139,05 from the amount of EUR 417 234,68 distributed in the context of a project funded by the European Union and regarded as recoverable following irregularities allegedly committed at the financial reporting stage; and |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision to offset debts contained in the letter of the Commission of 25 November 2021, by which the Commission decided to recover the amount of EUR 22 139,05 from the amount of EUR 417 234,68 distributed in the context of a project funded by the European Union and regarded as recoverable following irregularities allegedly committed at the financial reporting stage; and

| — | order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay the costs of the present proceedings.

Plea in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on a single plea in law, divided into four parts.

| 1. | Single plea, alleging absence of the contested claim.






  — | The applicant alleges in this regard infringement of the principle of good administration and diligence of the administrative action relating to the expenditure verification carried out by Ernst & Young (EY); infringement of the rights of the defence relating to the expenditure verification carried out by EY; infringement of the principle of good administration by failing to have regard to the duty of impartiality in the context of the administrative action; and incorrect interpretation of the contract in the report made by EY. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

Single plea, alleging absence of the contested claim.

—

The applicant alleges in this regard infringement of the principle of good administration and diligence of the administrative action relating to the expenditure verification carried out by Ernst & Young (EY); infringement of the rights of the defence relating to the expenditure verification carried out by EY; infringement of the principle of good administration by failing to have regard to the duty of impartiality in the context of the administrative action; and incorrect interpretation of the contract in the report made by EY.

---
<PAGE>
                                                                EXHIBIT 10(g)(2)


                                 FIRST AMENDMENT
                                     TO THE
                         QUAKER OATS COMPANY STOCK PLAN
                              FOR OUTSIDE DIRECTORS

         WHEREAS, The Quaker Oats Company Stock Plan For Outside Directors (the
"Plan"), was established by The Quaker Oats Company (the "Company") for the
benefit of the eligible nonemployee members of the Board of Directors; and

         WHEREAS, amendment of the Plan is desirable to eliminate the
cancellation and payment of cash in connection with any change in control
transaction which would preclude pooling of interests accounting, if such
treatment would otherwise apply to the transaction, but otherwise retain the
full effect and benefit of the plan provisions, including the elimination of
further service requirements as a condition of the options or restricted stock;

         NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the authority delegated to the undersigned
by resolution of the Board of Directors of the Company, the Plan is hereby
amended as of the 21st day of November, 2000, by adding the following sentence
to the end of section 6.1:

         Notwithstanding any other provision of the Plan, Options outstanding on
         the date of a Change in Control which is intended to qualify as a
         pooling of interests transaction shall not be subject to any additional
         service requirement as a condition of exercise but shall not otherwise
         be subject to the foregoing provisions of this Section 6.1.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment is executed below by a duly
authorized officer of the Company.


                                                The Quaker Oats Company

                                                By: /s/ Robert S. Morrison
                                                   -----------------------------
                                                Its: Chairman, President, and
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Chief Executive Officer
                                                     ---------------------------
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          80,144
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                37,300
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    111,288
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          27,404
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            27,245
<LOANS>                                        504,981
<ALLOWANCE>                                      9,242
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 909,760
<DEPOSITS>                                     758,400
<SHORT-TERM>                                    16,545
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             10,402
<LONG-TERM>                                     28,194
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     11,659
<COMMON>                                        85,657
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,097)
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 909,760
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 17,631
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,366
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                19,997
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               7,372
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,712
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           12,285
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      715
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (16)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 15,187
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,467
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       1,467
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       555
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .04
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                     5.7
<LOANS-NON>                                     11,600
<LOANS-PAST>                                       262
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 6,079
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 5,156
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      815
<RECOVERIES>                                       111
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                9,242
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             9,242
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2022198EN.01006101.xml

| 16.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/61 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/61

---

Action brought on 21 March 2022 — Volkswagen v EUIPO — XTG (XTG)

(Case T-154/22)

(2022/C 198/87)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Machei and G. Orsoni, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: XTG S.A. (Wrocław, Poland)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Applicant of the trade mark at issue: Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Trade mark at issue: European Union word mark XTG — Application for registration No 18 120 217

Procedure before EUIPO: Opposition proceedings

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 December 2021 in Case R 1385/2021-5

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO and, as the case may be, the intervener to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO and, as the case may be, the intervener to bear the costs of the proceedings.

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
No. 11-10453.

#### Kenner *v.*Mercer et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 31.1  I, Dempsey Mork, certify that:  1.           I have reviewed this quarterly report for the period ended Sept. 30, 2008 on Form 10-Q of Knickerbocker Capital Corp.;  2.           Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3.           Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4.           The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  a)           Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  b)           Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c)           Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5.           The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a)           All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b)           Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.  Nov. 19, 2009  /s/ Dempsey Mork Dempsey Mork Chief Executive Officer
# C_2022171EN.01001701.xml

| 25.4.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 171/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 171/17

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Portugal) lodged on 19 January 2022 — Global, Companhia de Seguros, S.A. v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-42/22)

(2022/C 171/21)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Global, Companhia de Seguros, S.A.

Respondent: Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

Questions referred

| A. | Must Article 13(B)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive, (1) and, therefore, the current Article 135(1)(a) of the VAT Directive, (2) be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘insurance and reinsurance transactions’ includes, for the purposes of exemption from VAT, related or supplementary activities such as the purchase and sale of parts from written-off vehicles? |
| --- | --- |

A.

Must Article 13(B)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive, (1) and, therefore, the current Article 135(1)(a) of the VAT Directive, (2) be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘insurance and reinsurance transactions’ includes, for the purposes of exemption from VAT, related or supplementary activities such as the purchase and sale of parts from written-off vehicles?

| B. | Must Article 13(B)(c) of the Sixth VAT Directive, and, therefore, the later Article 136(a) of the VAT Directive, be interpreted as meaning that parts from written-off vehicles are regarded as being purchased and sold solely for an exempt entity, where those goods have not given rise to the right to deduction of VAT? |
| --- | --- |

B.

Must Article 13(B)(c) of the Sixth VAT Directive, and, therefore, the later Article 136(a) of the VAT Directive, be interpreted as meaning that parts from written-off vehicles are regarded as being purchased and sold solely for an exempt entity, where those goods have not given rise to the right to deduction of VAT?

| C. | Is it contrary to the principle of VAT neutrality for the sale of parts from written-off vehicles by insurance companies not to be exempt from VAT where there was no right to deduction of VAT? |
| --- | --- |

C.

Is it contrary to the principle of VAT neutrality for the sale of parts from written-off vehicles by insurance companies not to be exempt from VAT where there was no right to deduction of VAT?

---

(1)  Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes — Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (OJ 1977 L 145, p. 1, Portuguese special edition: Chapter 09 Volume 001 P. 54).

(2)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

---