alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018427EN.01004101.xml

| 26.11.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 427/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.11.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 427/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 October 2018 — Greece v Commission

(Case T-272/16) (1)

(EAGF and EAFRD - Expenditure excluded from financing - Expenditure incurred by the Hellenic Republic - Flat-rate financial corrections - Specific financial corrections - Area-related aid scheme - Concept of permanent pasture - Conditions for imposing a flat-rate correction of 25 % - Flat-rate correction of 10 % - Flat-rate correction of 5 % - Article 31(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005 - Key controls - Ancillary controls - Multiannual measures - Long-term projects)

(2018/C 427/50)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Applicant: Hellenic Republic (represented by: G. Kanellopoulos, O. Tsirkinidou, A. Vasilopoulou, D. Ntourntoureka and E. Leftheriotou, acting as Agents)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially D. Triantafyllou and J. Aquilina, then D. Triantafyllou, J. Aquilina and K. Skelly, and lastly D. Triantafyllou, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action based on Article 263 TFEU seeking annulment in part of Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2016/417 of 17 March 2016 excluding from European Union financing certain expenditure incurred by the Member States under the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) (OJ 2016 L 75, p. 16).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Hellenic Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

PAMELA and HOWARD NELSON :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4204

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a

GlaxoSmithKline.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04204-PBT Document 7 Filed 10/02/2002 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 23.1

     TO: Pacificap Entertaitiment Holdings, Inc.

     As registered  independent certified public accountants,  we hereby consent
     to the incorporation by reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB under
     the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 of Pacificap  Entertainment  Holdings,
     Inc.  for the year ended  December  31, 2004 of our report  dated March 31,
     2005  and  contained  in the  Registration  Statement  No.  333-117'226  of
     Pacificap Entertainment,  Holdings, Inc. Form SB-2 under the Securities Act
     of .933  insofar as such  report  relates to the  financial  statements  of
     Pacificap  Entertainment  Holdings,  Inc.  for the year ended  December 31,
     2004.


                           /s/ RUSSELL BEDFORD STEFANQU MIRCHANDANI LLP
                                Russell Bedford Stefanou Mirchandani LLP





     March 31, 2005
     McLean, Virginia
No. 52916.

#### American Ferment Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 137647-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the substance in question is the same in all material respects as the concentrated ox gall the subject of *G. D. Searle & Co.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 112, C. D. 1138), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
i -. ~.. 1 .~I’ f.“~ OFF+OF THE AmORNEYQENEtiL OF TEXAS AtJmfN

&tt &tQniO, TOSaS ".

near BirtHonorable E. 0. Garvey, page 2

taxes onvhich said poll or ad valorem tax the interest andpenalties have been released by any of the provisions of this Act shall be and the sameare hereby released, andno such costs shall hereafter be charged, aollected, or accounted for, provided, hovever, that any ccsts that are nowdue andpayable to any officer 

### orofficial shall remain a valid obligation, notwithstanding the provislone hereof.

time W Anyone desiring to pay at one

the delinquent taxes for only one yesx wherein such taxes are delinquent for :4ore than one year shall have the right to pay the sane but vithout remlsslon of penalties and interest; provided, hovever that any persons ava&lFng them-

., selves. of. the b0sefit.e. of this Act shall .berequired to pay all dellnauent ad valorem taxes due the State and oounty on an7 specific piece of property onvhiah suoh taxes are delinquent before the penalties andinterest maybe released as herein providedi tionditioned that a six per cent (6%) penalty on the total amount .;:i:j:::!!j:/:!; delinquent be,paid on suoh property.” You suggest’ that the $1.06~redemption foe would seem to be due in the case mentioned by you since “the penalty 

### and interest” have not been released in full, there being charged 

### a6s penalty. Hovever it seems rather olear to us that the release of aoste provided in Seotion 2will apply to this tme of case the sameas if the taxpayer should pay all his delinquent taxes andnot be oharged vith 

### a6%penalty. As 

### alreadymentioned Seotion 1 of House Bill 76 provides a complete release of the old penalty and accrued interest. Thepenaltp 

### of6%levied in Seation 3 constitutes the levy of a fresh penalty, not the retention of 

### apart of the old penalty. Henoe, ve ar4 aonatrained to the viev that our opinion 190.O-3634 is applloable to this case also, and that if on or before Tiovember1, 1941, the property owner pays all fhe delinquent taxes due against a apeoiflo piece of property he stands relieved of this oost, although taking the 696penalty. Your18v4rg truly ATTOFtXEY

GENERAL

OFTEXAS 

## BY
No. 61266.

protests 290921-K, etc. (New York).

#### The Top Company, Inc., and R. J. Saunders & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of Angora rabbit hair similar in all material respects to that the subject of *W. N. Proctor Company*v. *United States*(35 Cust. Ct. 89, C. D. 1727), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
Exhibit 32



TECO CAPITAL TRUST II



Certification of Periodic Financial Report

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350



Each of the
undersigned officers of TECO Energy, Inc. (which is designated to make compliance filings on behalf of TECO Capital Trust II (the Trust)) certifies, under the standards set forth in and solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in that Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust.



|                      |  |                                             
|--------------------- |  | --------------------------------------------
|Dated: March 30, 2005 |  | /s/ S. W. HUDSON                            
|                      |  | S. W. HUDSON                                
|                      |  | Chief Executive Officer of TECO Energy, Inc.
|                      | 
|Dated: March 30, 2005 |  | /s/ G. L. GILLETTE                          
|                      |  | G. L. GILLETTE                              
|                      |  | Chief Financial Officer of TECO Energy, Inc.



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission as an exhibit to the Form 10-K and shall not be considered filed as part of the
Form 10-K.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
BUREAU OF THE FISCAL SERVICE
WASHINGTON, DC 20227

MAY 04 2015

Dear Sir or Madam:

The Bureau of Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service) of the U.S. Department of the Treasury has noticed
over the past year an increase in submissions of large dollar checks by Federal agencies to the
Treasury General Accounts (TGAs) that are over the amount of $99,999,999.00. This recent
activity has prompted some attention to Fiscal Service’s existing policy on large dollar checks.

For the purpose of educational efforts, Fiscal Service reminds agencies about the policy on large
dollar checks in the Treasury Financial Manual (TFM), Volume 1, Part 5, Section 2060-
Reporting Large Deposits, which states that “agencies must not accept any check written for
more than $99,999,999.99, as the Federal Reserve banks will not process checks over that
amount.” Additionally, the Federal Reserve Banks give specific guidance related to large dollar
check amounts, with which Fiscal Service is aligned. The Federal Reserve Banks Operating
Circular 3, “Collection of Cash Items and Returned Checks,” Section 3.2, states that the Federal
Reserve Banks do not handle any items over the $99,999,999.00.

More importantly, since no check processing equipment can handle amounts over a million
dollars, these large dollar items are handled entirely manually. With manual processing, the
risks of fraudulent activity, processing errors, and uncollectible funds are more likely when
checks over these amounts are accepted by TGA depositaries. In addition, the large check items
may become lost or mis-shipped, stolen, and require special handling procedures by the TGA
banks. Fiscal Service understands that these policies may impact agencies’ internal policies.
Where necessary, Federal agencies should implement policies that align with the above
mentioned policies on large dollar check amounts to avoid check processing delays, which may
result in customer late fees and penalties.

Effective January 1, 2016, TGA depositaries will no longer accept checks over $99,999,999.00
for TGA services. The TGA depositaries will be instructed to reject any deposit in OTCnet
which contains a large dollar check in the amount of one hundred million or more. The large
dollar check will be returned to the Federal agency that attempted to deposit it.


Should you have any further questions regarding this policy, please feel free to contact me at
202-874-5202 or Ava Singleton, who can be reached on 202-874-9986.

Sincerely, y
QMM
Ln M a

id M. Metler, Director
Over the Counter Division
AIC Revenue Collections Division
|On-line Bookcover to Fauna 2Fauna Series No. 2Cover
      Contents
      Foreword
      Introduction
      Part I
      Part II | UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIORHAROLD L. ICKES, Secretary

NATIONAL PARK SERVICEARNO B. CAMMERER, Director

FAUNAOF THE NATIONAL PARKSOF THEUNITED STATES

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT IN THENATIONAL PARKS

ByGEORGE M. WRIGHTandBEN H. THOMPSON

CONTRIBUTION OF WILDLIFE DIVISION
FAUNA SERIES NO. 2 - July 1934

        Seal of the Department of The Interior : March 13, 1849UNITED STATESGOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON: 1935
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Top                                                                                                                                  | History |
              Links to the Past |
              National Park Service |
              Search |
              ContactLast Modified: Tues, Feb 1 2000 07:08:48 pm PDT
        http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/fauna2/fauna.htm                                                                                                                                                                                                     
|History |
              Links to the Past |
              National Park Service |
              Search |
              Contact
FI -PLSA  

The Officer of the Financial Institution identified below designates the following to serve as Primary Local Security Administrator (PLSA) and Local Security Administrator (LSA) for the Over the Counter Channel (OTCnet) Application.  Each PLSA may designate other individuals as Users or Local Security Administrators (LSAs). **It is****required that you have 1 PLSA and at least 1 LSA per Financial Institution.**
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# The Technical Basis for the NRC's Guidelines for External Risk Communication (NUREG/CR-6840)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6840 PDF - 6.77 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:**January 2004**Date Published:**January 2004****

**Prepared by:** L. Peterson, E. Specht, E. Wight WPI 6 Montgomery Village Avenue, Suite 650 Gaithersburg, Maryland 20879

S. Browde, A. Szabo, J. Persensky, NRC Project Managers

**Prepared for:** Division of Systems Analysis and Regulatory Effectiveness Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

NRC Job Code Y6635 

Availability Notice

## Abstract

This report provides the basis for NUREG/BR-0308, "Effective Risk Communications: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Guidelines for External Risk Communication." It presents a comparative analysis of NRC's risk communication needs and the state-of-the-art in risk communication practices, with a focus on external risk communications. In addition to providing a resource for the data collected during the formulation of the guidelines, this report provides recommendations for how the NRC can best incorporate risk communication principles throughout the agency. The Summary of Findings section contains the risk communication challenges and needs identified by NRC staff and management along with ideas, based on the state-of-the-art, for how NRC can improve in these areas. The Appendices contain survey instruments and results from the Needs Assessment Survey, which determined NRC risk communication needs, and the Best Practices Survey, which determined the state-of-the-art. Additionally, the appendices contain NRC and non-NRC (domestic and international) case studies, an annotated bibliography, and a risk message checklist.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
# C_2018032EN.01000502.xml

| 29.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/5

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 16 November 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo — Portugal) — Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP v Maxiflor — Promoção e Comercialização de Plantas, Importação e Exportação, Lda

(Case C-491/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 53(2) and Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 - Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 - Article 3(1) - Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Concept of ‘multiannual programme’ - Scope of application))

(2018/C 032/07)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Referring court

Referring court

Supremo Tribunal Administrativo

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Instituto de Financiamento da Agricultura e Pescas, IP

Applicant:

Defendant: Maxiflor — Promoção e Comercialização de Plantas, Importação e Exportação, Lda

Defendant:

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The first and third questions referred by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme Administrative Court, Portugal) are manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The first and third questions referred by the Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme Administrative Court, Portugal) are manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | The second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests must be interpreted as meaning that an operational programme, for the purposes of Article 9(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, such as the operational programme ‘Agriculture and rural development’, approved by Commission Decision C(2000) 2878 of 30 October 2000, does not come within the concept of ‘multiannual programme’, within the meaning of the first of those provisions, unless that programme is already covered by concrete actions to be implemented, which is to be determined by the referring court. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The second sentence of the second subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 of 18 December 1995 on the protection of the European Communities financial interests must be interpreted as meaning that an operational programme, for the purposes of Article 9(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds, such as the operational programme ‘Agriculture and rural development’, approved by Commission Decision C(2000) 2878 of 30 October 2000, does not come within the concept of ‘multiannual programme’, within the meaning of the first of those provisions, unless that programme is already covered by concrete actions to be implemented, which is to be determined by the referring court.

---

(1)  OJ C 441, 28.11.2016.

1

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

_______________________________

:

IN RE: HYDROGEN PEROXIDE : CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-666

ANTITRUST LITIGATION :

______________________________:

:

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: :

:

CONOPCO, INC., et al. v. :

ARKEMA, INC., et al. :

: MDL DOCKET NO. 1682

and :

:

CONOPCO, INC., et al. v. :

FMC FORET, S.A. :

_______________________________

ORDER

AND NOW, this 31st day of March, 2010, upon

consideration of the motion of FMC Corp. and FMC Foret S.A.

(collectively "FMC") to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims for

perborates purchases made in foreign commerce (docket entry 

# 613), the plaintiffs' response thereto (docket entry # 632), and

FMC's reply (docket entry # 647), and in accordance with the

accompanying Memorandum, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The motion to dismiss (docket entry # 613) is

GRANTED;

2. Plaintiffs' claims for perborates purchases made in

foreign commerce are DISMISSED; and 
3. By April 9, 2010 the parties shall NOTIFY the Court

by fax (215-580-2156) regarding whether mediation with Magistrate

Judge Jacob P. Hart would be fruitful in resolving the plaintiffs'

remaining claims against FMC.

BY THE COURT:

__\s\Stewart Dalzell

2
# C_2019082EN.01004201.xml

| 4.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2018 — Fruits de Ponent v Commission

(Case T-290/16) (1)

((Non-contractual liability - Agriculture - Peach and nectarine markets - Disruption during the 2014 season - Russian embargo - Temporary exceptional support measures for producers - Delegated Regulations (EU) Nos 913/2014 and 923/2014 - Rules of law intended to confer rights upon individuals - Duty of diligence and the principle of sound administration - Sufficiently serious breach - Causal link))

(2019/C 82/47)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Applicant: Fruits de Ponent, SCCL (Alcarràs, Spain) (represented by M. Roca Junyent, J. Mier Albert, R. Vallina Hoset and A. Sellés Marco, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by I. Galindo Martín and K. Skelly, and subsequently by I. Galindo Martín, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action pursuant to Article 268 TFEU seeking compensation for the damage allegedly sustained by three of the applicant’s members on account of acts and omissions of the Commission, in the context of the adoption of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 913/2014 of 21 August 2014 laying down temporary exceptional support measures for producers of peaches and nectarines (OJ 2014 L 248, p. 1) and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 932/2014 of 29 August 2014 laying down temporary exceptional support measures for producers of certain fruit and vegetables and amending Delegated Regulation (EU) No 913/2014 (OJ 2014 L 259, p. 2).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Fruits de Ponent, SCCL to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Fruits de Ponent, SCCL to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 25.7.2016.

---
##### 



EXHIBIT 99(b)

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 Amended Quarterly Report of Northland Cable Television,
Inc. and Subsidiary (the Company) on Form 10Q/A for the period ended March
31, 2001 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Form 10-Q/A), I, Gary Jones, President 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 Form 10-Q/A fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or
(15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78(d)); and   
| | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Form 10-Q/A fairly presents in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

Dated: November 8, 2002

| |  |     |  |                                                                     
| |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | BY: |  | /s/ GARY S. JONES                                                   
| |  |     |  |                                                                     
| |  |     |  | Gary S. Jones
President
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)