alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 453/2021

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 453 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 649 November 2021 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 453

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 649 November 2021

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 453/01 | Euro exchange rates — 8 November 2021 | 1 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2021/C 453/01

Euro exchange rates — 8 November 2021

1

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 453/02 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10249 – DERICHEBOURG ENVIRONNEMENT / GROUPE ECORE HOLDING) (
  1
  ) | 2 |
| 2021/C 453/03 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10432 – PTTGC / Allnex) (
  1
  ) | 4 |
| 2021/C 453/04 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10447 – NN / METLIFE GREECE / METLIFE POLAND) (
  1
  ) | 5 |
| 2021/C 453/05 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9969 – VEOLIA / SUEZ) (
  1
  ) | 6 |
| | OTHER ACTS |
| | European Commission |
| 2021/C 453/06 | Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to a product specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 | 7 |
| 2021/C 453/07 | Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to a product specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33 | 13 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2021/C 453/02

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10249 – DERICHEBOURG ENVIRONNEMENT / GROUPE ECORE HOLDING) (
  1
  )

1

2

2021/C 453/03

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10432 – PTTGC / Allnex) (
  1
  )

1

4

2021/C 453/04

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.10447 – NN / METLIFE GREECE / METLIFE POLAND) (
  1
  )

1

5

2021/C 453/05

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9969 – VEOLIA / SUEZ) (
  1
  )

1

6

OTHER ACTS

European Commission

2021/C 453/06

Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to a product specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33

7

2021/C 453/07

Publication of a communication of approval of a standard amendment to a product specification for a name in the wine sector referred to in Article 17(2) and (3) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/33

13

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

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

EN
# Official Journal L 65I/2019

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 065I |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 626 March 2019 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 065I

English edition

Legislation

Volume 626 March 2019

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | RULES OF PROCEDURE |
| | | European Investment Bank |
| | * | European Investment Bank Decision of 6 February 2019 laying down internal rules concerning the processing of personal data by the Fraud Investigations Division within the Inspectorate General and the Office of the Chief Compliance Officer of the European Investment Bank in relation to the provision of information to data subjects and the restriction of certain of their rights | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

RULES OF PROCEDURE

European Investment Bank

*

European Investment Bank Decision of 6 February 2019 laying down internal rules concerning the processing of personal data by the Fraud Investigations Division within the Inspectorate General and the Office of the Chief Compliance Officer of the European Investment Bank in relation to the provision of information to data subjects and the restriction of certain of their rights

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #17052 and #17053; Illinois Disaster Number IL-00065]
 AGENCY: U.S. Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Illinois dated 07/26/2021. *Incident:* Flooding. *Incident Period:* 06/25/2021 through 06/27/2021.
 DATES: Issued on 07/26/2021. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 09/24/2021. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:* 04/26/2022.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:* McLean. *Contiguous Counties:* Illinois: Champaign, De Witt, Ford, Livingston, Logan, Piatt, Tazewell, Woodford. The Interest Rates are: Percent*For Physical Damage:*Homeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere
3.250Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere
1.625Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere
5.760Businesses without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.880Non-Profit Organizations with Credit Available Elsewhere
2.000Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.000*For Economic Injury:*Businesses & Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.880Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 17052 6 and for economic injury is 17053 0. The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is Illinois. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008) Isabella Guzman, Administrator.


[FR Doc. 2021-16264 Filed 7-29-21; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8026-03-P
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.2






INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT

To the Board of Directors
Navistar Financial Securities Corporation

We have examined management's assertion that Navistar Financial Corporation (the
"Company") has complied as of and for the year ended October 31, 2004, with its
established minimum servicing standards described in the accompanying
Management's Assertion Concerning Compliance dated January 31, 2005 for the
servicing of the receivables for the Navistar Financial Dealer Note Master
Trust. The Company's management is responsible for the Company's compliance with
those minimum servicing standards. Our responsibility is to express an opinion
on management's assertion about the Company's compliance based on our
examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's
compliance with its minimum servicing standards and performing such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our
examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does
not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with its minimum
servicing standards.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended October
31, 2004, is fairly stated, in all material respects based on the criteria set
forth in Appendix I.



/s/DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
    Deloitte & Touche LLP
    Chicago, IL


January 31, 2005
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman,

 Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 

August 29, 2018

Order 

Clerk

August 29, 2018

158153(49)

GAIL GIRERD, Personal Representative of the 

ESTATE OF CHRISTOPHE GIRERD, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

SC: 158153

v COA: 336818

Wayne CC: 15-013440-NO

SANA ENERGY & MANAGEMENT, INC. and 

MY05, LLC,

Defendants-Appellants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff-appellee to extend the time for 

filing an answer to the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The answer will be 

accepted as timely filing if submitted on or before September 28, 2018.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                          13,566
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,141
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,229)
<INVENTORY>                                        120
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,468
<PP&E>                                          19,558
<DEPRECIATION>                                (13,929)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  48,290
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,233
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       100,215
<OTHER-SE>                                    (63,480)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    48,290
<SALES>                                          1,566
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,566
<CGS>                                            2,711
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    6,982
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    67
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,968)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,968)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,968)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.22)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2
**CERTIFICATIONS**
     I, Brent W. Christensen, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Meade Instruments Corp.;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations 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 andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;
 b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and
 c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe 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 whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting
Date: July 15, 2005
#### In the Matter of Anissa A.P. Administration for Children’s Services, Respondent; Gasmelba B., Appellant.

[947 NYS2d 882]

— In a child neglect proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of fact-finding of the Family Court, Queens County (Arias, J.), dated May 25, 2011, which, after a fact-finding hearing, found that she neglected the subject child.

Ordered that the order of fact-finding is reversed, on the facts, *854without costs or disbursements, the petition is denied, and the proceeding is dismissed.

A finding that a child is abused or neglected must be based on a preponderance of the evidence *(see*Family Ct Act § 1046 [b] [i]; *Matter of Adelia V. [Braun],*91 AD3d 659, 660 [2012]). Here, the petitioner failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the mother neglected the child.

On this record, we find that the child’s unsworn, out-of-court statements of the mother’s neglectful conduct were not sufficiently corroborated as required by Family Court Act § 1046 (a) (vi) *(see Matter of Jeshaun R. [Ean R.],*85 AD3d 798 [2011]; *Matter of Peter G.,*6 AD3d 201 [2004]).

As a result of our determination, the mother’s remaining contentions have been rendered academic. Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.
(January 31,1986)

#### Michael Freedus, Respondent, v Blanchfield & Howard, Inc., Appellant.

— Motion for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted, without costs. No issue of fact was considered by this court. Pursuant to CPLR 5713, this court certifies that the following question of law, decisive of the correctness of its determination, has arisen, which in its opinion ought to be reviewed by the Court of Appeals: "Did this court err, as a matter of law, in modifying the order and judgment by reversing so much thereof as fixed the amount of counsel fees, remitting the matter to Special Term for further proceedings and, as so modified, affirming the order?” Mahoney, P. J., Main, Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 2381

MELINDA GAY DILL , Plaintiff

- Appellant , and
FRANKIE A. DILL , Plaintiff ,

v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION , Defendant

- Appellee

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Beaufort

. David C. Norton , District Judge. ( 9:19

- cv
- 02003

- DCN )

Submitted : April 14, 2020 Decided: April 1 6 , 2020

Before WILKINSON , QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Melinda Gay Dill , Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Melinda Gay Dill appeals the district court’s order accepting the recomm endation of the magistrate judge and dismissing her complaint for failure to comply with the court’s
order

. The magistrate judge recommended that Dill’s complaint be dismissed and advised
Dill that failure to file timely specific objections to this recomm endation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. See United States v. Midgette , 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007); see also Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140, 154

- 55 (1985). Dill has waived appellate review by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                       2,084,000
<SECURITIES>                                28,406,000
<RECEIVABLES>                               23,545,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   240,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            64,300,000
<PP&E>                                      23,220,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              12,405,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              89,147,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       14,715,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,447,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  71,745,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                89,147,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            65,679,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               48,426,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,334,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              9,776,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                 3,666,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          6,110,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 6,110,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .39


</TABLE>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-41247

Conference Calendar

 

JERRY T. PARDUE,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

N. L. CONNER, Warden,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:99-CV-115

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

August 24, 2000

Before KING, Chief Judge, and POLITZ and WIENER, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Jerry T. Pardue, federal prisoner #06225-112, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for

writ of habeas corpus. Pardue argues that the district court

erred in dismissing his § 2241 petition because he is actually

innocent, he was denied Due Process, and his prior § 2255 motion

was denied in the Seventh Circuit. 

Pardue’s § 2241 petition attacks alleged errors at trial. 

Accordingly, his petition should have been brought as a § 2255

motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence. See Tolliver
No. 99-41247

-2-

v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877-78 (5th Cir. 2000). To the extent

that a certificate of appealability (COA) is required, COA is

denied. See § 2253(c)(2). Pardue required permission from the

Seventh Circuit before he could file a successive § 2255 motion,

and he has not obtained any such permission. See §§ 2244, 2255. 

In addition, even if Pardue had permission to file a successive

§ 2255 motion, Pardue could file it only in Illinois, and it was

improperly filed in Texas. See § 2255. Accordingly, the

district court properly dismissed Pardue’s petition. Pardue’s

appeal is frivolous because it lacks any arguable basis in law or

fact, and it is dismissed as such. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d

215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R. 42.2. All outstanding

motions are denied.

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; COA DENIED; ALL OUTSTANDING

MOTIONS DENIED.