alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

Appeal brought on 4 January 2006 by Groupe Danone against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 25 October 2005 in Case T-38/02: Groupe Danone v Commission of the European Communities

(Case C-3/06 P)

(2006/C 48/37)

Language of the case: French

An appeal against the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities (Fifth Chamber) of 25 October 2005 in Case T-38/02 Groupe Danone v Commission of the European Communities was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 4 January 2006 by Groupe Danone, represented by A. Winckler and S. Sorinas, avocats.

The appellant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the present appeal, the appellant raises five pleas to have the judgment under appeal set aside in part. Those pleas are based, firstly, on an incorrect interpretation by the Court of First Instance of the concept of 'repeated infringement' and, secondly, on the manifest unlawfulness of the amendment of the method of calculation of the fine which led to a decrease in the reduction of the fine granted for attenuating circumstances and, accordingly, an increase in the amount of the fine by comparison with that which would have been applicable had the Court of First Instance reduced the increase for aggravating circumstances from 50 % to 40 % without amending the method of calculation of the fine used by the Commission.

In support of its arguments in relation to the incorrect interpretation of the concept of repeated infringement, the appellant relies on three separate pleas.

The appellant raises two further pleas in support of its argument in relation to the manifestly unlawful nature of the increase in the amount of the fine decided on by the Court of First Instance following the change in the weighting applied for extenuating circumstances. The main plea relates to misuse of power, lack of jurisdiction and infringement of Articles 229 EC and 230 EC on the part of the Court of First Instance. That plea is divided into two parts.

In the alternative, the appellant puts forward a second plea based on infringement of the rights of the defence and the principle of non-retroactivity of penalties. By failing to allow discussion on its intention to amend the method of calculation of the fine and increase the amount of the fine, the Court of First Instance acted in breach of a fundamental principle of Community law with a real impact on the ability of the appellant to defend itself. The Court of First Instance also retroactively applied to the ‘Belgian Beer’ decision of 2001 case-law dating from 2003, clarifying the method of applying the weighting for attenuating circumstances in the method of calculation of the fine.

----

(1)  Regulation No 17: First Regulation implementing Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty (OJ, English Special Edition 1959-62, p. 87).

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7863
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus WILLIAM KELLY BROWN, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-93-17, CA-96-48-2-H) Submitted: March 27, 1997 Decided: April 4, 1997 Before RUSSELL, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.William Kelly Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Fenita Talore Morris, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we denya certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Brown , Nos. CR-93- 17, CA-96-48-2-H (E.D.N.C. Nov. 29, 1996). 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.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 189 (Thursday, September 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 58304]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24931]



[[Page 58304]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Delegation of Authority No. 236-3]


Delegation by the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public 
Affairs of Certain Functions to the Assistant Secretary for Educational 
and Cultural Affairs or in the Absence Thereof, to the Principal Deputy 
Assistant Secretary and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy and 
Resources; Title Correction

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: Correction.

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

SUMMARY: This delegation was published on page 53795 of the Federal 
Register for Tuesday, September 5, 2000. A correction was made to the 
text of this delegation before it was published in the Federal Register 
but its title was not changed to reflect this correction. The corrected 
title of this delegation is Delegation by the Under Secretary for 
Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs of Certain Functions to the 
Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs.

    Dated: September 22, 2000.
Timothy Egert,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 00-24931 Filed 9-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-08-P
|                                                                                      
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                      
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                        
|View History: Annual                                                                  
|View History: Annual                                                                  
|View History:                                                                         
|                                                                                      
|Louisiana - South Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                      
|                                                                                      
|Louisiana - South Onshore Natural Gas Plant Liquids, Proved Reserves (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                      

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1970's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 676   
|1980's                                                                                                                            | 540    | 544    | 501    | 527    | 454    | 442    | 428    | 429    | 421    | 411   
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 431    | 417    | 380    | 334    | 337    | 495    | 411    | 333    | 325    | 364   
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 337    | 269    | 226    | 182    | 153    | 168    | 159    | 168    | 142    |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6406

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus SAM EDWARD JONES, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CR-89-19-BO, CA-96-1072-5-BO) Submitted: July 2, 1998 Decided: July 16, 1998 Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Sam Edward Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinions and find no reversible error. We decline to address the district court’s comment that Appellant actively employed the gun because we find that the district court properly found the record clearly indicates that the jury found that Appellant “carried” a gun, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (1994). See United States v. Hudgins , 120 F.3d 483, 487 (4th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, we find that the district court properly determined that Appellant “carried” a gun during and inrelation to a drug trafficking crime. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Jones , Nos. CR-89-19-BO; CA96-1072-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Mar. 6, 1997). 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.

DISMISSED
Notice is hereby given in accordance with Public Law 92-463 that the Actuarial Advisory Committee will hold a meeting on February 7, 2000, at 3:30 p.m. at the office of the Chief Actuary of the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois, on the conduct of the 21st Actuarial Valuation of the Railroad Retirement System. The agenda for this meeting will include a discussion of the assumptions to be used in the 21st Actuarial Valuation. A report containing recommended assumptions and the experience on which the recommendations are based will have been sent by the Chief Actuary to the Committee before the meeting.

The meeting will be open to the public. Persons wishing to submit written statements or make oral presentations should address their communications or notices to the RRB Actuarial Advisory Committee, c/o Chief Actuary, U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-2092.

Dated: January 28, 2000.

Beatrice Ezerski,

Secretary to the Board.

[FR Doc. 00-2466  Filed 2-3-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7905-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000090168
<NAME> SIFCO INDUSTRIES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           5,230
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   19,133
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     26,491
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                52,220
<PP&E>                                          32,523
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  91,135
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,143
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            5,173
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      45,366
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    91,135
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                29,525
<CGS>                                           25,080
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   28,518
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (300)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 350
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    957
<INCOME-TAX>                                        78
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                879
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       879
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .17
        

</TABLE>
|                                                                                         
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                         
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                           
|View History: Annual                                                                     
|View History: Annual                                                                     
|View History:                                                                            
|                                                                                         
|Louisiana State Offshore Dry Natural Gas Reserves Revision Decreases (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                         
|                                                                                         
|Louisiana State Offshore Dry Natural Gas Reserves Revision Decreases (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                         

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |        | 282    |        |        |        |        | 280    | 150    | 304    | 3,191 
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 124    | 169    | 153    | 104    | 143    | 166    | 97     | 123    | 110    | 217   
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 127    | 83     | 282    | 85     | 131    | 43     | 51     | 93     | 82     | 207   
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 84     | 18     | 248    | 47     | 51     | 55     | 32     | 49     | 3      | 84    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 122    | 332    |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
**Exhibit 31.2**

**CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION**

I, Kevin M. Shook, Chief Financial Officer of Eastern Insurance Holdings,Inc., certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Eastern Insurance Holdings, Inc.; 

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 thestatements 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 theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have: 

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated 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 registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this report (the “Evaluation Date”); and 

(c) presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluationas of the Evaluation Date; 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, tothe registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

(a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identifiedfor the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and 

(b) any fraud, whether or notmaterial, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and 

6. Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have indicated in this report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of ourmost recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses. 

Date: April 2, 2007
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                         Special Emphasis Panel in Physics (1208).                    

*Date and Time:*                         Wednesday, Nov. 8, 2000; 6 p.m.-9 p.m.; Thursday, Nov. 9, 2000; 8:30 a.m.-6 p.m.; Friday, Nov. 10, 2000; 8:30 a.m.-3 p.m.                    

*Place:*                         Room 1020, NSF, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Closed.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Dr. Terrence W. Rettig, Program Director for the Physics REU Site proposals, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 292-7381.                    

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice and recommendations concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate the Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) Sites proposals, as part of the selection process.                    

*Reason for Closing:*                         The proposals being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) and (6) of the Government in Sunshine Act.                    

Dated: September 27, 2000.

Karen J. York,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-25195 Filed 9-29-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
|                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------
|                                                      
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)        
|View History: Annual                                  
|View History: Annual                                  
|View History:                                         
|                                                      
|No chart available.                                   
|No chart available.                                   
|                                                      
|                                                      
|Missouri Non-Marketed Production  (Million Cubic Feet)
|                                                      

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2020's                                                                                                                            | NA     | NA     | NA     |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 5/31/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: 6/28/2024