alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 372/2018

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 372 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 6115 October 2018 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 372

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 6115 October 2018

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2018/C 372/01 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2018/C 372/02 | Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union | 2 |
| 2018/C 372/03 | Information provided by the Commission in accordance with Article 8, second subparagraph, of Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services — Statistics on technical regulations notified in 2017 under the Directive (EU) 2015/1535 notification procedure (
  1
  ) | 3 |

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2018/C 372/01

Euro exchange rates

1

2018/C 372/02

Explanatory Notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Union

2

2018/C 372/03

Information provided by the Commission in accordance with Article 8, second subparagraph, of Directive (EU) 2015/1535 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical regulations and of rules on Information Society services — Statistics on technical regulations notified in 2017 under the Directive (EU) 2015/1535 notification procedure (
  1
  )

1

3

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2018/C 372/04 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9091 — SNAM/SGI/Sardinia Newco) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 8 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2018/C 372/04

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.9091 — SNAM/SGI/Sardinia Newco) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

8

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

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

EN
EXHIBIT 32.2




CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER




ANSWERS
CORPORATION




FORM 10-Q
FOR THE QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 2009




PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED




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






I am the
Chief Financial Officer of Answers Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the
“Company”). I am delivering this certificate in connection with the
Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 and filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Form 10-Q”).




Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge,
the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.












Date: May 6, 2009/s/
      STEVEN STEINBERGSteven
      SteinbergChief
      Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer)
EXHIBIT 31.2CERTIFICATIONSI, Robert M. Doyle, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Coinmach Service 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 included inthis 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 thisreport; 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have: a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b. Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused suchinternal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, toprovide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;  c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. 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
 

 
  audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.        Date: February 5, 2007 /s/ Robert M. Doyle   Robert M. Doyle   Chief Financial Officer
#### Anonymous, Respondent, v Anonymous, Appellant.

[718 NYS2d 854]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline Silbermann, J.), entered July 26, 2000, which, in an action for divorce, denied defendant’s motion to compel plaintiff and the parties’ child to submit to an examination by defendant’s forensic expert, and directed defendant to submit to an examination by the forensic expert previously appointed by the court pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant was properly directed to submit to examination by the previously appointed forensic expert absent any showing of bias on the part of the expert or of some inadequacy in her already conducted examination of plaintiff and the parties’ child. Moreover, even if further evaluations of plaintiff and the child were necessary, an expert unilaterally chosen by one side would not be an appropriate choice *(see, Rosenblitt v Rosenblitt,*107 AD2d 292, 294-296). So much of defendant’s argument as addresses the motion court’s decision to reduce plaintiff’s visitation is unreviewable since the record does not contain the order that the motion court directed be settled to implement such decision *(see, Gunn v Palmieri,*86 NY2d 830; *Murray Hill Manor Co. v Destination Paradise,*266 AD2d 132). We have considered and rejected defendant’s other arguments. Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Rubin, Saxe and Friedman, JJ.
#### Lonnie SNELLING, Appellant, v. APOSTLE DEMOLITON, WRECKING AND EXCAVATING, et al., Respondents.

No. ED 81847.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

June 10, 2003.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 14, 2003.

Application for Transfer Denied Aug. 26, 2003.

Lonnie Snelling, St. Louis, pro se.

Patricia A. Hageman, City Counselor, Lynn M Bohlmann, St. Louis, MO, for respondent.

Before ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., P.J. and MARY K. HOFF, J. and GEORGE DRAPER III, J.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Lonnie Snelling (Appellant) appeals from the following: (1) the trial court’s order granting St. Louis Development Corporation — LRA’s (LRA) motion to dismiss on Count VI of Appellant’s second amended petition; (2) the trial court’s order granting Apostle Demolition, Wrecking and Excavating’s (Apostle) motion to dismiss Counts V and VI of Appellant’s third amended petition; (3) the trial court’s order granting Apostle’s motion for directed verdict on Counts III and IV of *503Appellant’s third amended petition; (4) the judgment of the trial court following a jury trial in favor of Apostle on Counts I and II of Appellant’s third amended petition; (5) the order of the trial court denying Appellant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict; and (6) the order of the trial court denying Appellant’s motions to vacate the verdicts, amend the judgment, and for a new trial. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
STATE v. Lewis E. PERSON

267P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

September 28, 2017

Lewis E. Person, for Person, Lewis E.

Sherri Lawrence, Assistant Attorney General, N. Lorrin Freeman, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 7th of August 2017 by Defendant for Notice of Appeal:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of September 2017."
Stella ANDERSON, Petitioner, v. The NORTH CAROLINA STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS & ETHICS ENFORCEMENT, Respondent.

No. COA17-1370

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: June 5, 2018

DISMISSED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.5

                          WAIVER AND CONSENT AGREEMENT

         THIS WAIVER AND CONSENT AGREEMENT ("this Agreement"), effective as of
December 31, 2002, and executed on February 3, 2003, is entered into by BOYD
BROTHERS TRANSPORTATION, INC., a Delaware corporation (the "Borrower"), and
AMSOUTH BANK, an Alabama banking corporation (the "Lender").

                                    RECITALS

         A.       The Borrower and the Lender have entered into a Credit
Agreement dated as of May 1, 2001, as amended (the "Credit Agreement").

         B.       The Borrower has requested that the Lender enter into this
Agreement in order to grant certain consents and waivers with respect to the
Credit Agreement as hereinafter described.

                                    AGREEMENT

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and of the
mutual agreements of the parties hereto:

                  1.       The parties agree that capitalized terms used in this
Agreement and not otherwise defined herein have the respective meanings
attributed thereto in the Credit Agreement.

                  2.       The Lender consents to and waives the failure of the
Borrower to:

                  (a)      Not make Capital Expenditures (exclusive of trucks
and trailers) during any fiscal year in an amount greater than $500,000.

                  3.       This Agreement may be executed in one or more
counterparts, each of which shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original
and all of which shall constitute the same instrument, but only one of which
need be produced.


<PAGE>

                  4.       The Borrower hereby represents and warrants that all
representations and warranties contained in the Credit Agreement are true and
correct as of the date hereof (except representations and warranties that are
expressly limited to an earlier date); and the Borrower certifies that except
for those matters waived or consented to herein, no Event of Default nor any
event that, upon notice or lapse of time or both, would constitute an Event of
Default, has occurred and is continuing.

                  5.       Nothing contained herein shall be construed as a
waiver, acknowledgment or consent to any breach or Event of Default of the
Credit Agreement and the Credit Documents not specifically mentioned herein, and
the consents granted herein are effective only in the specific instance and for
the purposes which given.

                  6.       This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the
State of Alabama.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Borrower and the Lender has caused this
Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized officer as of the day and year
first above written.

BOYD BROTHERS TRANSPORTATION, INC.        AMSOUTH BANK



By: /s/ Richard Bailey                    By: /s/ Paul Walker
   ----------------------------------        ----------------------------------



Its: CFO                                  Its: Vice President
    ---------------------------------         ---------------------------------
*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.

1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-60122

Summary Calendar

KENNETH MARSH,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

V.

ITO CORPORATION; INTERNATIONAL

LONGSHOREMEN’S ASSOCIATION, Local 1303;

DONALD EVANS, President,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

(1:97-CV-531-GR)

September 23, 1999

Before JOLLY, EMILIO M. GARZA and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Kenneth Marsh, plaintiff-appellant, appeals the decision of

the district court granting summary judgment in favor of

defendants-appellees ITO Corporation, International Longshoremen’s

Association (the Union) and Donald Evans, the Union president.

Marsh filed suit against ITO Corporation, the Union and Evans

alleging discrimination based on disability in violation of the
2

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.,

and against the Union and Evans alleging breach of the duty of fair

representation under the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §

185(a). We have reviewed the record and the parties’ briefs and

find no reversible error. We AFFIRM for essentially the same

reasons stated by the district court in its final judgment. Marsh

v. ITO Corporation, No. 1:97-CV-531GR (S.D. Miss. Jan. 19, 1999).
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-3 No. 333-120692), the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 33-94782), the
Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-22211), the Registration Statement
(Form S-3 No. 333-43267), the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-39282),
the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-65592) of Liberty Property Trust
and Liberty Property Limited Partnership and in the related Prospectuses of our
reports dated February 28, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements and schedule of Liberty Property Limited Partnership, Liberty
Property Limited Partnership management's assessment of the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting of Liberty Property Limited Partnership,
included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2004.



                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 7, 2005
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1534
PERE J. JARBOE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TOGO WEST, in his capacity as Acting Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs, Defendant - Appellee, and HERSHEL GOBER, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-98- 2832-MJG) Submitted: June 17, 1999 Decided: June 22, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2 Pere J. Jarboe, Appellant Pro Se. Perry F. Sekus, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland; Paige Elizabeth Harrison, UNITED STATES FOOD & DRUG ADMINISTRATION, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Pere Jarboe appeals two district court’s orders, the first granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment and dismissing Jarboe’s employment discrimination action under the Rehabilitation Act, and the second denying his motion for reconsideration. 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 Jarboe v. Gober , No. CA-98-2832-MJG (D.Md. Feb. 11 & Apr. 6, 1999). 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
BARBEE v. WHAP, P.A., et al.

315P17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 7, 2017

Michael S. Eldredge, Attorney at Law, Lexington, David J. Dickens, Attorney at Law, Orange, VA, for Barbee, Judith, et al.

Linda L. Helms, Lorin J. Lapidus, Attorneys at Law, Winston-Salem, for Whap, P.A., et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th of October 2017 *574by Plaintiffs to Withdraw Petition for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 7th of December 2017."
#### Yellow Trading Limited, Respondent, v Fratelli Ricatto Import & Export Co., Inc., Appellant.

[720 NYS2d 358]

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mason, J.), dated September 28, 1999, which, *inter alia,*granted the plaintiffs motion to strike its answer, and directed an inquest on the issue of damages.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The appeal from the order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action *(see, Matter of Aho,*39 NY2d 241). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment *(see,*CPLR 5501 [a] [1]; *Yellow Trading v Fratelli Ricatto Import & Export Co.,*279 AD2d 572 [decided herewith]). Ritter, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.1

                            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-QSB of Maximum
Awards, Inc. (the "Company") for the for the quarterly period ended September
30, 2006 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I,
Maxwell Thomas, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities  Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates
presented and consolidated results of operations of the Company for the periods
presented.

Dated: November 20, 2006


By: /s/ Maxwell Thomas
    ------------------
    Chief Executive Officer and
    Chief Financial Officer



This certification has been furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
STATE of North Carolina v. Wendy M. DALE

No. COA17-320

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: November 21, 2017

AFFIRMED.
#### Ernest GRIFFIN and Lucy Griffin v. WICKES LUMBER COMPANY and/or Wickes, Inc. (Delaware), ABC Insurance Company, Ernest Gross, and Westaff, Inc. (f/k/a Western Temporary Services).

No. 2003-C-1338.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 2003.

In re Griffin, Ernest et al.; Griffin, Lucy; — Plaintiff(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. N, No. 454,109; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2002 CA 0294.

Denied.
EX-10.2



 EXHIBIT 10.2 
 Mindspeed Technologies, Inc. has entered into an agreement with each of the following persons, which is substantially identical, except as set forth below, to the form of Employment Agreement filed as
Exhibit 10.9 to the Registrant’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 3, 2008: 
 Najabat H.
Bajwa 
 Raouf Y. Halim 
 Gerald J. Hamilton 
 The multiple set forth in Section 6(i)(B) of the
Employment Agreement for Mr. Halim is three and the multiple set forth in Section 6(i)(B) of the Employment Agreement for the other persons is two.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 5, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 58249]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19979]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Region II Buffalo District Advisory Council; Public Meeting

    The U.S. Small Business Administration Region II Advisory Council 
located in the geographical area of Buffalo, New York, will hold a 
public meeting on Wednesday, October 12, 2005, starting at 10 a.m. 
eastern standard time. The meeting will take place at the Manufacturers 
& Traders Trust Company, One M&T Plaza, Buffalo, New York to discuss 
such matters that may be presented by members and staff of the U.S. 
Small Business Administration, or others present.
    Anyone wishing to make an oral presentation to the Board must 
contact Franklin J. Sciortino, District Director, Buffalo District 
Office, in writing by letter or fax no later than Friday, October 7, 
2005 in order to be put on the agenda. Franklin J. Sciortino, District 
Director, Buffalo District Office, U.S. Small Business Administration, 
Niagara Center, 130 S. Elmwood, Suite 540, Buffalo, New York 14202; 
telephone (716) 551-4301 or fax (716) 551-4418.

Matthew K. Becker,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-19979 Filed 10-4-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
STATE v. Willie James LANGLEY

221PA17-1

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 30, 2018

John Keating Wiles, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Langley, Willie James.

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, Kimberly S. Robb, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Glenn Gerding, Appellate Defender.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 30th of April 2018 by Defendant to Withdraw as Private Assigned Counsel and to Appoint the Appellate Defender:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 30th of April 2018."