alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006175EN.01000301.xml

| 27.7.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/3

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its 403rd meeting on 10 February 2006 concerning a preliminary draft decision in case Comp/A.38.381— De Beers

(2006/C 175/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees that the proceedings opened with a formal statement of objections under article 82 of the Treaty in January 2003, can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of EC Regulation No 1/2003 which will make commitments binding on De Beers. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees that the proceedings opened with a formal statement of objections under article 82 of the Treaty in January 2003, can be concluded by means of a decision pursuant to Article 9(1) of EC Regulation No 1/2003 which will make commitments binding on De Beers.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees that a transitional period, from 2006 to 2008, during which De Beers can purchase a maximum amount of rough diamonds from ALROSA can be considered necessary to build a competitive distribution system for the quantities of diamonds previously sold by Alrosa to De Beers. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees that a transitional period, from 2006 to 2008, during which De Beers can purchase a maximum amount of rough diamonds from ALROSA can be considered necessary to build a competitive distribution system for the quantities of diamonds previously sold by Alrosa to De Beers.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees that — in the light of the commitments offered by the undertakings — there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees that — in the light of the commitments offered by the undertakings — there are no longer grounds for action by the Commission, without prejudice to Article 9(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

| 5. | The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take account of all other points raised during the discussion. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take account of all other points raised during the discussion.

---
**Exhibit 31**

**PROSPERO MINERALS CORP.  CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO  SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Hubert L.  Pinder, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Prospero Minerals Corp.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   The small business issuer’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the small business issuer and we have:

a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c)   presented in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal controls over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.   The small business issuer’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a)   all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data; and

b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls.   

Date:  July 17, 2008

*By:/s/ Hubert L. Pinder*          

Mr. Hubert L. PinderChief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

BY THE

MANAGING DIRECTOR & CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

I, Robert A. Ruijter, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines,
a company incorporated under the laws of the Netherlands;

2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the registrant and have:

         (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
         disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
         supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
         registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
         us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
         which this report is being prepared; and

         (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
         and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
         effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
         of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

         (c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
         control over financial reporting that occurred during the period
         covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is
         reasonable likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
         control over financial reporting.

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

         (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
         or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
         reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
         record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

         (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
         other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
         internal control over financial reporting.

Date: August 31, 2004

ROBERT A. RUIJTER
Managing Director & Chief Financial Officer

                                       64
Eric J
. Fygi Deputy G eneral Counsel Department of Energy Washin gton, DC 20585

Dear Deputy General Counse l Fygi : 

### U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Antitrus t Di vision 

### WILLIAM J. BAER Assistant A ttorney Gene r a l
RFK Main Ju stice Buildin g 950 P ennsylvania Avenue , N
.W Washington . D .C. 20530-0001 (202)5 14

- 240 l I (202)616-2645 (Fax) November 25, 2013

I am responding to you r September 24 , 2013 letter seeking the views of the Attorney General about the potential impact on competition of proposed energy conserva ti on standards for certain types of commerc ial refrigeration equipment. Your request was submitted under Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Ac t, as amended (EC PA ), 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V), which requires the Attorney Genera l to make a determination of the impact of any lessening of competition that is li kely to resul t from the imposition of proposed energy conservati o n standard s. The Attorney General's responsibility for responding t o requests from other departments about the effect of a program on competi tion has b een delegated to the Assistant Attorney Gene ral fo r the Antitru st Division in 28 CFR § 0.40(g). In conducting its analysis the Antitrust Division examines whether a proposed standard may lessen compet iti on, for exampl e , by s ub s tanti ally lim iting consumer c hoice, by placing certain manufacturers at an unjustified competitive di sadvantage, o r b y inducing avoidable inefficiencies in production or distribution of particular products. A lessening of compet iti on could resu lt in higher prices to m a nufacturers and cons umers, and perhaps thw art the intent of the revised s tandards by inducing substi tuti on to less efficient produ cts. We have reviewed the proposed standards contained in the No ti ce o f Propo sed Ru lemaking (78 Fed. Reg
. 1 76, September 1 1 , 20 13). We have al so reviewed sup plementary information submitted to the A tt orney General by the Department of Energy, including a transcript of the public mee tin g held on th e propo se d s tandards on October 3, 2013. Based on this review, our conclusion is that the proposed energyNovember 25 , 2013 2

conservation standards for commercial refrigeration equipment are un likely to have a significant adverse impact on competition.

Enclosure
Case No. 8,425.

#### The LIZZIE WESTON.

[Blatchf. Pr. Cas. 265.] 1

District Court, S. D. New York.

Dec. Term, 1862.

Judgment — Term or Court Ended — Power to Open.

This court, as a prize court, has no power to open a decree after the expiration of the term or session in which it was rendered.

In admiralty.

BETTS, District Judge.

A final decree was entered in this suit in September term last. [Case No. 8.424.] On the 15th and 17th of November the counsel for one of the claimants moved the court, on affidavits alleging circumstances of equity in behalf of such *707claimants, to open that decree, and award a compensation of about $12,000 to the claimant intervening, because of supposed interests of his affected by the decree. The motion was opposed by the libellants. The general rule of practice clearly prevailing in courts of law and admiralty is, that the power of a court over a judgment terminates with the sitting of the court which renders the judgment. The sitting is not necessarily limited to the particular day on which the judgment is pronounced, but includes and is restricted to the term or session of the court in which it is rendered. Hudson v. Guestier, 7 Cranch [11 U. S.] 1; Whiting v. Bank of U. S., 13 Pet. [38 U. S.] 13; Washington Bridge Co. v. Stewart, 3 How. [44 U. S.] 424; Bank of U. S. v. Moss, 6 How. [47 U. S.] 31; The Martha [Case No. 9,144]; U. S. v. The Glamorgan, [Id. 15,214], An entire term (October) having, in this ease, intervened after the final decree rendered in the suit, the court has no authority-, on the application of either party, to reopen that decree at this time, and make a new disposition of the subject. The general practice of the prize court conforms to that of the admiralty on its instance side (2 Stat. 761, § C), and thus corresponds in essential features with that of the high court of admiralty of England (Sup. Ct. Rule No. 7, of Aug. 8, 1791, 1 How. [42 U. S.] xxiv.; Jennings v. Carson, 4 Cranch [8 U. S.] 2). The instances which may occur in equity courts in England of a deviation there.after from the foregoing rule do not affect its permanency and effect in the courts of admiralty within the United States. The motion to open the decree for further proceedings is therefore denied.
Exhibit 32

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 Annual Report of Kansas Gas and Electric Company (the
Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the Report), which this certification accompanies, William B. Moore, in my capacity as Chairman of the Board and President (Principle Executive Officer) of the Company, and Mark A.
Ruelle, in my capacity as Vice President and Treasurer (Principle Financial and Accounting Officer) of the Company, certify that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |     |  |                                                                                          
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 13, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ William B. Moore                                                                     
|                     |  |     |  | William B. Moore, Chairman of the Board and President (Principal Executive Officer)      
|                     |  |    
|Date: March 13, 2006 |  | By: |  | /s/ Mark A. Ruelle                                                                       
|                     |  |     |  | Mark A. Ruelle, Vice President and Treasurer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
EXHIBIT 31.B
**CERTIFICATION**
I, D. Mark Leland, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of El Paso Production Holding Company;
2. Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or 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 theperiod covered 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 thisReport;
4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this Report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this Report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisReport based on such evaluation; 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(the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditorsand the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; 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: August 5, 2005          /s/ D. Mark Leland    D. Mark Leland    Executive Vice President and Chief FinancialOfficer(Principal Financial Officer)El Paso Production Holding Company
February 20, 1951

No. 55257.

#### Dorward & Sons Co. and Pacific Vegetable Oil Corp. *v.*United States,

protests 128569-K and 128570-K.

C. D. 1290. Plaintiffs’ application for rehearing denied.
# C_2008010EN.01002101.xml

| 15.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 10/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 10/21

---

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the roll-over protection structures of wheeled agricultural or forestry tractors (codified version)’

COM(2007) 310 final — 2007/0107 (COD)

(2008/C 10/05)

On 2 July 2007 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the abovementioned proposal.

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the proposal and feels that it requires no comment on its part, it decided, at its 438th plenary session of 26 and 27 September 2007 (meeting of 26 September) by 172 votes, with 4 abstentions, to issue an opinion endorsing the proposed text.

Brussels, 26 September 2007.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Dimitris DIMITRIADIS

---
December 22, 1941

No. 46716.

#### Protest 771782-G of D. P. Harris Hardware & Mfg. Co.

Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
March 2, 1945

No. 50050.

Suit 4482.

#### *United States*v. *Gulf Oil Corporation.*

C. D. 837 affirmed January 4, 1945.. C. A. D. 297.
(Reap. Dec. 8666)

Entry Nos. A-249; A-86.

#### Kennedy Bros. Arms Company The Kennoc Company v. United States

(Decided October 3, 1956)

*Wallace & Schwartz {Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*by *Joseph Schwartz*and *Edward N. Glad*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General *{John J. Antus,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Fokd, Judge:

When the two appeals listed in the attached schedule were called for a hearing, after being restored to the docket for the purpose of permitting evidence of United States value or cost of production, it was agreed between counsel that there was no freely offered foreign value, no freely offered export value, and that such or similar merchandise was not freely offered in the United States for domestic consumption, and that the cost of production for the articles in question was the appraised unit values, less 8 per centum Canadian sales tax.

Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact, I find the cost of production of the involved merchandise to be the appraised unit values, less 8 per centum Canadian sales tax. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 24



                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the undersigned, an officer and/or director
of Jefferson-Pilot Corporation, a North Carolina corporation, does hereby
constitute and appoint John D. Hopkins, Robert A. Reed, Richard T. Stange, and
Andrea H. Fox, and each of them (with full power of substitution to appoint any
Senior Officer, Vice President, Secretary or Assistant Secretary of the Company)
as his true and lawful attorney and agent, to do any and all acts and things and
to execute any and all instruments which said attorney and agent may deem
necessary or advisable to enable the Corporation to comply with the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as in respect thereof, in connection with the filing of
the annual report for the year 2002 or any later year on Form 10-K, including
specifically, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the power
and authority to sign for and on behalf of the undersigned the name of the
undersigned as officer and/or director of the said corporation to any such Form
10-K or to any amendment thereto filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission and to any instrument or document filed as part of, as an exhibit to
or in connection with, said 10-K or amendment; and the undersigned does hereby
ratify and confirm as his own act and deed all that said attorney and agent (or
the substitute) shall do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has subscribed these presents.


                                             _____________________________(SEAL)

                                             Name:

                                             Date:    February 10, 2003
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21
                                                                      ----------


                            WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES
                            -------------------------

Keithley International Investment Corporation
28775 Aurora Road, Cleveland, Ohio 44139, U.S.A.

Keithley Foreign Sales Corporation
5 Norre Gade, Charlotte Amalie
St. Thomas, U.S. Virgin Islands 00801

FRANCE:  Keithley Instruments SARL
3 Allee des Garays,  BP 60
91122 Palaiseau Cedex

GERMANY:  Keithley Instruments GmbH
Landsberger Strasse 65
D-82110 Germering (Munich)

GREAT BRITAIN:  Keithley Instruments Ltd.
The Minister, 58 Portman Road
Reading (London), Berkshire RG30 1EA

ITALY:  Keithley Instruments SRL
Viale San Gimignano 38
20146 Milano

NETHERLANDS:  Keithley Instruments BV
Avenlingen West 49
4202 MS Gorinchem (Amsterdam)

SWITZERLAND:  Keithley Instruments SA
Kriesbachstrasse 4
8600 Dubendorf (Zurich)
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

Wniteb ~tate~ «ourt of §ppeaI~ 

for tbe jf eberaI «irruit 

BARON MONTERO JONES, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES, 

Defendant.Appellee. 

2011-5025 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in case no. 10-CV-215, Judge Susan G. Braden. 

ON MOTION 

ORDER 

The United States moves for a lO·day extension of 

time, until May 30, 2011, to file its informal response 

brief, 

Upon consideration thereof, 

IT Is ORDERED THAT: 

The motion is granted. 
-------,---'-

JONESv. US 

HAY 1 B 2011 

Date 

cc: Baron Montero Jones 

FOR THE COURT 

lsI Jan Horbaly 

Jan Horbaly 

Clerk 

2 

Armando A. Rodriguez-Feo, Esq. FILED 

s21 ,.s. COUR!" OF APPEALS FOR 

THE FEDE~M. CIRCLIIT 

MAY 1 8 2011 

JAft HORlW.Y 

CL£II(