alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2008037EN.01003302.xml

| 9.2.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/33

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 12 December 2007 — Sandoz v Commission

(Case T-105/04) (1)

1

(2008/C 37/53)

Language of the case: English

Language of the case: English

The President of the Sixth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.

1

---
#### § 2103.3 Applicability.

This regulation governs the National Security Council Staff Information Security Program. In consonance with the authorities listed in § 2103.1, it establishes the policy and procedures for the security classification, downgrading, declassification, and safeguarding of information that is owned by, is produced for or by, or is under the control of the National Security Council Staff.
# C_2023211EN.01000601.xml

| 16.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/6

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.11107 – EDF / SEKG / NEBRAS / QUWATT / SCE-QUVVAT)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 211/02)

On 12 June 2023, 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 English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ 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 policy’ 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 32023M11107. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32023M11107. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

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

---
```

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.33

        On September 16, 2005, American Technical Ceramics Europe AB ("ATC
Europe"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Technical Ceramics Corp. (the
"Company"), obtained a series of five term loans aggregating 12,000,000 Swedish
Krona ("SEK") (approximately $1,700,000) from Svenska Handelsbanken, AB (the
"Bank"). The loans are unsecured and bear interest at fixed rates ranging from
3.56% to 4.59%. The five loans are each for a principal amount of 2,400,000 SEK
and are fully amortizing. The loans mature in one to five years with the first
maturing on September 30, 2006 and one other maturing on each succeeding
September 30th through 2010. In connection with, and as an inducement for, the
Bank's making the loans, the Company entered into a Guaranty and Agreement with
the Bank whereby the Company has agreed to guarantee the payment of all of ATC
Europe's obligations under the loans.
```
### §5524. Review of accounts

The head of each agency shall provide for—

(1) the review of the account of each employee of the agency in receipt of payments under section 5522 or 5523 of this title, or both, as the case may be; and

(2) the adjustment of the amounts of the payments on the basis of—

(A) the rates of pay, allowances, and differentials to which the employee would have been entitled under applicable statute other than this subchapter for the respective periods covered by the payments, if he had performed active service under the terms of his appointment during each period in the position he held immediately before the issuance of the applicable evacuation order; and

(B) such additional amounts as the employee is authorized to receive in accordance with a determination of the President under section 5523(b) of this title.

(Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 481.)

| Derivation | U.S. Code | Revised Statutes and Statutes at Large |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | 5 U.S.C. 3074. | Sept. 26, 1961, Pub. L. 87–304, §4, 75 Stat. 663. |

Statutes at Large

Standard changes are made to conform with the definitions applicable and the style of this title as outlined in the preface to the report.
EXHIBIT 99.1



                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 Transition Report on Form 10-QSB/A1 (the "Report")
of Double Eagle Petroleum Company (the "Company") for the transition period
ended December 31, 2002, Stephen H. Hollis, the Chief Executive Officer and
David C. Milholm, Principal Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies
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 the undersigneds' knowledge and
belief: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) the information contained
in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  May 15, 2003                        /s/  Stephen H. Hollis
                                            ----------------------
                                            Stephen H. Hollis
                                            Chief Executive Officer


                                            /s/ David C. Milholm
                                            --------------------
                                            David C. Milholm
                                            Principal Financial Officer
§ 2003.3 Functions (Article III). In carrying out its purpose, the Panel: ( a ) Decides appeals by people who have filed classification challenges under section 1.8 of the Order;
( b ) Approves, denies, or amends agency exemptions from automatic declassification under section 3.3 of the Order;
( c ) Decides appeals by people or entities who have filed requests for mandatory declassification review under section 3.5 of the Order; and
( d ) Informs senior agency officials and the public, as appropriate, of final Panel decisions on appeals under sections 1.8 and 3.5 of the Order.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 9927 

To terminate the Shelter and Services Program of the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 4, 2024 

Ms. MACE (for herself, Mr. DONALDS, Mr. BUCHANAN, Mr. LANGWORTHY, 

Mr. POSEY, Ms. BOEBERT, Mr. NORMAN, Mr. MOONEY, Mr. MILLS, and 

Ms. MALLIOTAKIS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee 

on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To terminate the Shelter and Services Program of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. TERMINATION. 

4 Beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, 

5 no Federal funds are authorized to be appropriated or oth6 erwise made available to the Shelter and Services Program 

7 of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, as in efVerDate Sep 11 2014 06:36 Oct 23, 2024 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H9927.IH H9927

kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 9927 IH

1 fect on the day before such date of enactment, or to any 

2 successor or similar program. 

3 SEC. 2. TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

4 The unobligated balances of all amounts appropriated 

5 or otherwise made available to the Shelter and Services 

6 Program of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

7 as of the day before the date of the enactment of this Act 

8 shall be transferred to and merged with amounts other9 wise made available for necessary expenses to carry out 

10 the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency As11 sistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Condensed Consolidated Statement of Income and the Condensed Consolidated
Statement of Financial Position and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000766916
<NAME> AMOCO COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             222
<SECURITIES>                                       767
<RECEIVABLES>                                     3913
<ALLOWANCES>                                        14
<INVENTORY>                                        820
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  6361
<PP&E>                                           44158
<DEPRECIATION>                                   24151
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   29208
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             4926
<BONDS>                                           2190
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       12630
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     29208
<SALES>                                          28669
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 32629
<CGS>                                            20706
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    20706
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  6115
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  53
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   3344
<INCOME-TAX>                                       942
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               2402
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      2402
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        
<PAGE>
<PAGE>



</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Joseph M. Joseph, Respondent, *v.*New York State Liquor Authority, Appellant.

Fourth Department,

June 25, 1964.

*363
      *Richard R. Jenczka, Hyman Amsel*and *John J. O’Hare*for appellant.

*McDonough, Boasberg, McDonough & Belts (Charles J. McDonough*of counsel), for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

This appeal by the State Liquor Authority is from an order of Special Term which annulled and set aside a determination denying the petitioner-respondent’s application for permission to remove his retail liquor store from an area near downtown Buffalo to a shopping center in the Town of Amherst, Erie County. The order also directed the Authority to permit the removal and approve the application.

The basis of disapproval was, ‘ *‘*The Members of the Authority determine that the proposed area is sufficiently licensed at the present time by the package stores in their present location”. Special Term found that this determination was not supported by proof. We do not quarrel with this. It is obvious, however, that the Authority had before it additional information not submitted to Special Term. The petitioner-respondent’s application for removal contains answers purportedly given to questions which are not included. Thus the answers are valueless. There is also a reference to a statement attached to the application and it is not. The application contains detailed and specific instructions to be followed by one seeking permission to remove. It is reasonable to infer that these instructions were followed, yet none of the required information is included in the papers. All information before the Authority is important to proper judicial review.

This leads us to comment on the growing tendency of the Authority to treat judicial review of its administrative acts in a cavalier, inept, and careless manner. Of this we strongly disapprove.

Special Term, in the interests of justice, should not however have directed the approval by the Authority of the application to remove in view of the patent deficiencies in the record. Therefore, in the interests of justice and as a matter of discretion, the order should be reversed and the matter remitted to the Authority for further consideration.

Williams, P. J., Bastow, Henry, Noonan and Del Vecohio, JJ., concur.

Order unanimously reversed, with costs to the petitioner-respondent against the respondent-appellant and matter remitted to the respondent-appellant for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion.
# C_2008301EN.01003101.xml

| 22.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 301/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 301/31

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 8 October 2008 — Carbone-Lorraine v Commission

(Case T-73/04) (1)

1

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for electrical and mechanical carbon and graphite products - Guidelines on the method of setting fines - Gravity and duration of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Principle of proportionality - Principle of equal treatment)

(2008/C 301/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Carbone-Lorraine (Courbevoie, France) (represented by: A. Winckler and I. Simic, then A. Winckler and H. Kanellopoulos, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: F Castillo de la Torre and É. Gippini Fournier, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

APPLICATION for annulment of Commission Decision 2004/420/EC of 3 December 2003 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case No C.38.359 — Electrical and mechanical carbon and graphite products), and, in the alternative, annulment or reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant by that decision

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Le Carbone-Lorraine to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Le Carbone-Lorraine to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 106, 30.4.2004.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          66,000
<SECURITIES>                                   739,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               825,000
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,397,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           73,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,000
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,321
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,397,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               344,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               112,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                262,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            262,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   262,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09
        




</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of R. F. Fanning.

January 4, 1889.

Divorce — Commitment until Payment of Fine adjudged for Contempt in not paying Temporary Alimony and until Payment of Arrears of Alimony — Effect of Judgment of Dismissal of Divorce Suit.

*Habeas Corpus*and *Certiorari,*the writs issuing from this court January 2, 1889, returnable January 4th, and the facts being as follows: The petitioner, E. F. Fanning, sued his wife in the district court for Hennepin county, for divorce for cruelty. In her answer she sought a divorce on the same ground. In October, 1887, the petitioner was ordered to pay his wife alimony *pendente lite,*at a specified rate per week. On March 2, 1888, the court filed its decision that neither party was entitled to relief against the other. On December 22, 1888, in proceedings before *Lochren,*J., against petitioner for disobedience of former orders in respect to the alimony, he was adjudged to be in contempt, and sentenced to be imprisoned in the county jail until he should pay a fine of $30, and the sum of $48, arrears of alimony, not exceeding three months, and he was committed and imprisoned. On December 27, 1888, final judgment of dismissal was entered in the divorce suit.

*W. H. Donahue*and *James A. Kellogg,*for petitioner.

*Thos. Canty,*for respondent.

*By the Court.*

In this case the order committing for contempt had a double aspect: *First,*it was in the nature of a remedy to the party to enforce payment of the alimony; *second,*it was also punitive, or merely in punishment of the offence of contempt. In the first aspect it was only for the private benefit of the party; in the second, only to assert and vindicate the authority of the court, and so far its purpose was public. So far as it was private or remedial, — that is, so far as it required payment of money to the other party, — its force and life fell with the entry of judgment of dismissal; but, so far as it imposed a fine, the entry of judgment did not affect it. It follows that the petitioner is not entitled to a discharge until he has paid the *5fine. On payment of that, the remainder of the order being no longer in force, of course he will be entitled to a discharge. Let the petitioner be remanded.
**Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 28 March 2007 – Spain v Commission**

**(Case T‐220/04)**

EAGGF – ‘Guarantee’ Section – Expenditure excluded from Community financing – Tomatoes and citrus fruits – Sample checks – Force majeure

1.                     *Agriculture – EAGGF – Granting of aid and premiums – Obligation on Member States to organise an efficient system of administrative
controls and on-the-spot checks (Commission Regulation No 504/97, Art. 15(1)) (see paras 81-83)*

2.                     *Acts of the Community institutions – Regulations – Regulation prescribing specific control measures (see para. 89)*

3.                     *Agriculture – EAGGF – Clearance of accounts (see para. 102)*

4.                     *Community law – Principles – Force majeure (see para. 165)*

5.                     *Community law – Principles – Force majeure – Meaning (see para. 174-176, 178)*

**Re:**

| |
| --- |
| APPLICATION for annulment in part of Commission Decision 2004/136/EC of 4 February 2004 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (OJ 2004 L 40, p. 31). |

**Operative part**

The Court:

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Annuls Commission Decision 2004/136/EC of 4 February 2004 excluding from Community financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the Guarantee Section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund in so far as it excludes from Community financing a sum of EUR 979 554.48 corresponding to an adjustment of the aid to Andalusian growers of certain citrus fruits in respect of the financial years 1998 to 2001; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
#### § 245.33 Approval.

Authentication will be accomplished via secure communications means between the appropriate military authority and the ATCSCC for the implementation of ESCAT. Implementation will be validated with a call back via secure communications to the appropriate military authority. Further dissemination of information may be accomplished over non-secure communications.