alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009220EN.01003802.xml

| 12.9.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/38

---

Action brought on 16 July 2009 — Sepracor Pharmaceuticals (Ireland) v Commission

(Case T-275/09)

2009/C 220/81

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sepracor Pharmaceuticals (Ireland) Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: I. Dodds-Smith, Solicitor, D. Anderson, QC and J. Stratford, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order that the applicant’s costs of these proceedings are paid by the Commission. |
| --- | --- |

—

order that the applicant’s costs of these proceedings are paid by the Commission.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By means of this application, the applicant seeks the annulment, pursuant to Article 230 EC, of the Commission decision by which the Commission, confirming the opinion issued by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency (EMEA), granted the marketing authorisation for the applicant’s product ‘Lunivia’ but considered that the ‘eszopiclone’ contained in it was not a new active substance under Article 3(2) (a) of Regulation No 726/2004 (1).

o

1

The applicant puts forward two pleas in law in support of its claims.

First, the applicant claims that the defendant failed to apply the correct legal criteria for a new active substance in violation of the legislation, in particular of Article 10(2)(b) of Directive 2001/83 (2) and annex I, part II, section III of the same directive, as well as the applicable guidance such as Notice to Applicants, in particular its volume 2A and volume 3. The applicant further submits that the approach adopted by the defendant in the contested decision regarding the condition for qualifying as new active substance infringes the object and purpose of the legislative scheme which is predicted not upon concepts of ‘added value’ or comparative efficacy, but upon absolute standards of quality, safety and efficacy.

2

Second, the applicant claims that the defendant infringed its essential procedural rights since the EMEA received and took account of representations made by a third party without informing the applicant of their existence or giving it an opportunity to comment.

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (OJ 2004 L 136, p. 1)

1

(2)  Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (OJ 2001 L 311, p. 67)

2

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

<ARTICLE>                                   5
<LEGEND>
    (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>     0000852447
<NAME>                                      EUROMED INC
<MULTIPLIER>                                1
<CURRENCY>                                  $US
       
<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                             1
<CASH>                                      28,000
<SECURITIES>                                0
<RECEIVABLES>                               2,812,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                0
<INVENTORY>                                 4,187,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            11,921,000
<PP&E>                                      824,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              (445,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,925,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       7,959,000
<BONDS>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       0
<PREFERRED>                                 0
<COMMON>                                    40,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  4,915,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,925,000
<SALES>                                     7,132,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            7,161,000
<CGS>                                       6,863,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               7,534,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          74,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (447,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                115,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (332,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                             0
<CHANGES>                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                (332,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                               0.08
        

</TABLE>
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                        National Institute of Nursing Research Special Emphasis Panel.                    

*Date:*                        July 11, 2001.                    

*Time:*                        8 am to 5 pm.                    

*Agenda:*                        To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                        Ramada Inn Rockville, 1775 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852.                              ( print page 34702)    

*Contact Person:*                        John Richters, Scientific Review Administrator, National Institute of Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, Room 3AN32, MSC  Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 594-5971.                    

This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.361, Nursing Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: June 20, 2001.

LaVerne Y. Stringfield,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 01-16350  Filed 6-28-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
# C_2015016EN.01002701.xml

| 19.1.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 16/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.1.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 16/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 November 2014 — Alstom Grid v Commission

(Case T-521/09) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Power transformers market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement - Market-sharing agreement - 2002 Leniency Notice - Immunity from fines - Legitimate expectations - Duty to state reasons)

(2015/C 016/44)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Alstom Grid SAS, formerly Areva T&D SAS (Paris, France) (represented initially by: A. Schild, C. Simphal and E. Estellon, and subsequently by: J. Derenne, A. Müller-Rappard and M. Domecq, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: A. Bouquet, N. von Lingen and K. Mojzesowicz, and subsequently by: A. Bouquet, K. Mojzesowicz and P. van Nuffel, acting as Agents)

Re

Action for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 7601 final, of 7 October 2009, relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 EC and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.129 — Power transformers).

Operative part of the judgment:

The Court:

| 1) | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Dismisses the action;

| 2) | Orders Alstom Grid SAS to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders Alstom Grid SAS to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ 2010 C 51, 27.2.2010.

---
Steve Loren SCOTT, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7461.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
# C_2014071EN.01001401.xml

| 8.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 71/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 71/14

---

Judgment of the General Court of 23 January 2014 — SKW Stahl-Metallurgie Holding and SKW Stahl-Metallurgie v Commission

(Case T-384/09) (1)

(Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Market for calcium carbide and magnesium for the steel and gas industries in the EEA, with the exception of Ireland, Spain, Portugal and the United Kingdom - Decision finding an infringement of Article 81 EC - Price-fixing and market-sharing - Rights of the defence - Imputability of the unlawful conduct - Obligation to state reasons - Fines - Equal treatment - Mitigating circumstances - Cooperation during the administrative procedure - Proportionality - Joint and several liability for payment of the fine - 2006 guidelines on the method of setting fines)

(2014/C 71/23)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: SKW Stahl-Metallurgie Holding AG (Unterneukirchen, Germany); and SKW Stahl-Metallurgie GmbH (Unterneukirchen) (represented by: initially, A. Birnstiel, S. Janka and S. Dierckens, lawyers and, subsequently, A. Birnstiel and S. Janka)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: N. von Lingen and A. Antoniadis, Agents, and by A. Böhlka, lawyer)

Intervener in support of the applicants: Gigaset AG (formerly Arques Industries AG) (Munich, Germany) (represented by: C. Grave, A. Scheidtmann and B. Meyring, lawyers)

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2009) 5791 final of 22 July 2009 relating to a proceeding under Article 81 [EC] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39.396 — Calcium carbide and magnesium based reagents for the steel and gas industries), in so far as it applies to the applicants, and, in the alternative, an application for annulment or reduction of the amount of the fine imposed on the applicants by that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders SKW Stahl-Metallurgie Holding AG and SKW Stahl-Metallurgie GmbH, in addition to bearing their own costs, to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders SKW Stahl-Metallurgie Holding AG and SKW Stahl-Metallurgie GmbH, in addition to bearing their own costs, to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission;

| 3. | Orders Gigaset AG to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Gigaset AG to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 297, 5.12.2009.

---
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Declaration of Disaster #3339] 

      ( print page 34506)    
In accordance with a notice received from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, dated June 21, 2001, the above-numbered Declaration is hereby amended to include tornadoes as the incident type and to reopen the incident period for this disaster as beginning on April 10, 2001, and continuing.

All other information remains the same, i.e., the deadline for filing applications for physical damage is July 10, 2001 and for economic injury the deadline is February 11, 2002.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 59008)

Dated: June 21, 2001.

Herbert L. Mitchell,

Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. 01-16282  Filed 6-27-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Terence SASAKI, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7390.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
EXHIBIT 31.2

                         MANAGEMENT CERTIFICATION
I, Richard H. Casper, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of DOLPHIN
PRODUCTIONS, INC.;
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
statement 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant'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 registrant
and have:
a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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;
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 evaluations; and
c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation, based on our most recent evaluation of
internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors
and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):
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 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: December 30, 2003               /s/ Richard H. Casper

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

                                              Richard. H. Casper,
                                              President and
                                              Principal Executive Officer
Anthony C. HARRIS, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7469.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
Kyjuanzi HARRIS, petitioner, v. ILLINOIS.

No. 17-7472.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District denied.
II-00788

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Robert Krikourian <krikour@comcast.net>

Thursday, December 2, 2010 11:22 AM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Robert Krikourian

4100 Milano Ct

E1 Dorado Hills, CA 95762
Kenneth Everette ROBINSON, Jr., petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 17-7477.

Supreme Court of the United States

Feb. 20, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.
II-00043

From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Linda Knickerbocker <Lrknicks@yahoo.com>

Thursday, December 9, 2010 2:58 PM

dfadefinitions <dfadefinitions@CFTC.gov>

Re: No loopholes in Dodd-Frank

1) Securities and Exchange Commission/Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Commercial Risk (CFTC RIN

3235-AK65, SEC File Number $7-12-10)

Dear Commissioners Shapiro and Gensler: Don’t let the American Bankers Association (ABA) redefine important terms like

"commercial risk" to keep banks that engage in risky derivatives trading from complying with transparency and business

conduct requirements. Commercial risk should not be expanded to include financial risk. Accepting the ABA argument

would open the door for exemptions for risky hedge funds and insurance companies.

2) Commodities Futures Trading Commission, Re: Position Limits (RIN 3038-AD 17 )

Dear Commissioner Gensler: The CFTC needs to set strong position limits to crack down on the energy and food commodity

speculation that serves no productive purpose. I urge the Commission to define limits that will address not only manipulation,

but also excessive speculation, which will require a stricter approach.

3) U.S. Department of the Treasury, Re: FX Swaps (75 FR 66426 Document Number 2010-27274)

Dear Secretary Geithner: Just say "no" to foreign exchange traders who want to exempt foreign currency derivatives from the

clearing and transparency requirements of the

Dodd-Frank Act. $4 trillion dollars a day is traded in these highly-leveraged swaps and this number may increase to over $10

trillion in a decade. As the head of the Financial

Stability Oversight Board your job is to decrease risk in the system, not encourage off-book trading and opaque markets.

Linda Knickerbocker

1218 n Allen pl

Seattle, WA 98103
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 126 (Friday, June 29, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 34627]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16373]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EC01-119-000; Docket No. EL01-91-000]


GenHoldings I, LLC, Millennium Power Partners, L.P., Athens 
Generating Company, L.P., Covert Generating Company, LLC, Harquahala 
Generating Company, LLC, Athens Generating Company, L.P.; Notice of 
Filing

June 25, 2001.
    Take notice that on June 15, 2001, Millennium Power Partners, L.P., 
Athens Generating Company, L.P. (Athens), Covert Generating Company, 
LLC, Harquahala Generating Company, LLC (collectively, the 
Subsidiaries), and GenHoldings I LLC (GenHoldings) filed with the 
Commission: (1) A request by the Subsidiaries and GenHoldings for 
Commission authorization under section 203 of the Federal Power Act 
(FPA) for an intra-corporate reorganization whereby the Subsidiaries 
will become indirect, wholly-owned subsidiaries of their newly-formed 
affiliate, GenHoldings; and (2) a request by Athens, on behalf of the 
Greene County Industrial Development Agency, for the Commission to find 
that it is not a ``public utility'' under section 201(f) of the FPA.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions and 
protests should be filed on or before July 6, 2001. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be 
taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on 
the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-
2222 for assistance).
    Comments, protests and interventions may be filed electronically 
via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and 
the instructions on the Commission's web site at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-16373 Filed 6-28-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M