alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       7,348,587
<SECURITIES>                                61,276,033
<RECEIVABLES>                                6,966,323
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  9,983,773
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            89,464,049
<PP&E>                                       1,375,701
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              92,545,744
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,616,725
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       192,776
<OTHER-SE>                                  83,736,234
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                92,545,744
<SALES>                                     32,988,245
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            32,988,245
<CGS>                                       10,701,364
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               18,088,927
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,684,966
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,750,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          3,934,966
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 3,934,966
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20
        

</TABLE>
606 P.2d 826

#### The STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Raymond Daniel FORD, Appellant.

No. 2 CA-CR 1852-2.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2.

Dec. 21, 1979.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 6, 1980.

Review Denied Feb. 26, 1980.

Robert K. Corbin, Atty. Gen. by Bruce M. Ferg, Tucson, for appellee.

Richard S. Oseran, Pima Public Defender by Allen G. Minker, Tucson, for Appellant.

OPINION

HOWARD, Judge.

After pleading guilty to stealing a motor vehicle, appellant was sentenced to impris*9onment for ten years. At the change of plea hearing the trial court informed him that the presumptive sentence was five years in the state prison and also that if certain aggravating circumstances were found either through the county attorney or from the presentence report, it could increase the presumptive sentence to ten years.

Appellant did not request a presentence hearing pursuant to Rule 26.7, Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, 17 A.R.S. At the sentencing the trial court found aggravating circumstances in the presentence report.1 Appellant contends the trial court cannot, without violating due process rights, find aggravating circumstances unless it conducts a presentence hearing and unless the prosecutor alleges aggravating circumstances with the specific facts constituting the aggravation. We do not agree. If, after receiving a copy of the presentence report and *at any time prior to sentencing,*a defendant believes factors contained in A.R.S. Sec. 13-702(D) might be present and may increase the presumptive sentence, he may request a hearing pursuant to Rule 26.7 and present evidence to show why the presumptive sentence should be imposed rather than an increased sentence.

Affirmed.

RICHMOND, C. J., and HATHAWAY, J., concur.

1

. A.R.S. Sec. 13-702(D) sets forth the aggravating circumstances which the trial court may consider.
§ 582.1139 Ammonium hydroxide. ( a ) *Product.* Ammonium hydroxide.
( b ) *Conditions of use.* This substance is generally recognized as safe when used in accordance with good manufacturing or feeding practice.
# C_2016118EN.01003201.xml

| 4.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/32

---

Order of the General Court of 9 February 2016 — DEI v Commission

(Case T-639/14) (1)

1

((State aid - Complaints - Rejection decisions - Commission’s preliminary assessment - Final decision - Repeal of the contested act - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 118/36)

Language of the case: Greek

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Dimosia Epicheirisi Ilektrismou (DEI) (Athens, Greece) (represented by: E. Bourtzalas, D. Waelbroeck, A. Oikonomou, C. Synodinos and E. Salaka, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Bouchagiar and É. Gippini Fournier, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission letter COMP/E3/ON/AB/ark*2014/61460 of 21 June 2014 in which the Commission rejected the applicant’s complaints concerning State aid.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the present action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the present action.

| 2. | There is no longer any need to rule on the application for leave to intervene made by Alouminion tis Ellados AE. |
| --- | --- |

2.

There is no longer any need to rule on the application for leave to intervene made by Alouminion tis Ellados AE.

| 3. | Each party shall bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 395, 10.11.2014.

1

---
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

 

**18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,**

 

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

 

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connectionwith the Quarterly Report of Ebix, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for thequarterly period ended June 30, 2005 filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robin Raina, Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adoptedpursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 

 
| By:                     | /s/ Robin Raina |   |
|-------------------------|-----------------|--------|
|                    |            |
| Name:                   | Robin Raina     |   |
|                    |            |
| Chief Executive Officer |            |
|                    |            |
| August 12, 2005         |            |
|                         |                 |        |  |

 

----
#### Jeffries et al. *v.*Hammel et al.

[No. 17,473.

Filed April 16, 1946.

Rehearing Denied May 21, 1946.]

*611
      *George W. Miles,*of Madison, and *Amos Jackson,*of Versailles, for appellants.

*Curtis Marshall,*and *Arthur D. Cutler,*both of Madison, for appellees.

Flanagan, C. J.

Appellees have filed herein a motion to dismiss this appeal on the ground that no question for review has been presented.

Appellants assign as error the following:

> “1. That the decision of the court is contrary to law.

> *“2.*That the decision of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence.

> *“3.*That the decision of the court is clearly against the evidence.

> “4. That the decision of the court is against the law and the evidence.

> “5. The court erred in permitting appellee to produce certain evidence at the trial of said cause over the objection of appellants.

> “6. The court erred in overruling appellants’ motion for a new trial of said cause.”

*612The first five errors so assigned are not proper independent assignments. The sixth requires a consideration of appellants’ motion for a new trial but the motion is not to be found in the brief. Neither are any of the pleadings or the judgment.

Other serious defects have been pointed out both in the brief and in the transcript. However, it sufficiently appears from the above that no question has been presented. Rule 2-17, Rules of Supreme Court.

Appeal dismissed.

Note. — Reported in 66 N. E. (2d) 76.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

January 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

132378 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 132378 

 COA: 263091 

Mecosta CC: 04-005368-FC 

CHRISTOPHER ANDREW FOSTER,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 17, 2006 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

p0122 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

January 29, 2007 

 Clerk
EXHIBIT 32.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 Quarterly Report of American Affordable Housing II Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc N. Teal, Principal Financial Officer of the general partner of the general partner of the Partnership's general partner, C&M Management Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)-15 or 15(d)-15 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and                         
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                         
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.



|                  |     |                            
|----------------- | --- | ---------------------------
|Date:             |     |                            
|February 21, 2006 | By: | /s/ Marc N. Teal           
|                  |     |                            
|                  |     | Marc N. Teal               
|                  |     | Principal Financial Officer

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 Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Editorial Note on Part 892
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 892 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 892.5050 Medical charged-particle radiation therapy system. ( a ) *Identification.* A medical charged-particle radiation therapy system is a device that produces by acceleration high energy charged particles (e.g., electrons and protons) intended for use in radiation therapy. This generic type of device may include signal analysis and display equipment, patient and equipment supports, treatment planning computer programs, component parts, and accessories.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II. When intended for use as a quality control system, the film dosimetry system (film scanning system) included as an accessory to the device described in paragraph (a) of this section, is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 892.9.
[53 FR 1567, Jan. 20, 1988, as amended at 64 FR 1125, Jan. 8, 1999]
# C_2014351EN.01002901.xml

| 6.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 351/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 351/29

---

Action brought on 18 August 2014 — Wm. Wrigley Jr. v OHIM (Device of a blue sphere)

(Case T-626/14)

2014/C 351/38

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company (Wilmington, United States) (represented by: M. Kinkeldey, S. Brandstätter and C. Schmitt, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 June 2014 given in Case R 169/2014-5. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 June 2014 given in Case R 169/2014-5.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark representing a device of a blue sphere for goods in classes 3, 21 and 30 — Community trade mark application No 1 1 7 37  483

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Partially rejected the CTM application

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) CTMR.

Pleas in law:

---
#### Ann Leary *v.*William B. Johnson et al.

*Leo Gold,*on the motion.

Submitted September 9

decided September 24, 1969

The motion by the plaintiff for permission to file an appendix to her brief in the appeal from the Superior Court in Fairfield County at Stamford is granted; the appendix is to be filed within thirty days.
Editorial Note on Part 878
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 878 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 878.4750 Implantable staple. ( a ) *Identification.* An implantable staple is a staple-like device intended to connect internal tissues to aid healing. It is not absorbable.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
      This scheduale  contains  information  extracted from the statements dated
February 27, 2000 as filed in Form 10-K for the yearly  period then ended and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              FEB-27-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   FEB-27-2000
<CASH>                                         1,422
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               21,783
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 21,783
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,701,356
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    500
<COMMON>                                       324,185
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,004,258)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   21,783
<SALES>                                        5,344,223
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5,344,223
<CGS>                                          3,719,692
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  5,881,068
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               872,553
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             334,081
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,409,398)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,409,398)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,409,398)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.40)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 35.1



|     |  |                                                                                                              |  | 
|---- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | 
|LOGO |  | Commercial Mortgage Servicing D1050-084,
8th Floor 401 South Tryon Street Charlotte, NC 28202
1-800-326-1334 |  | 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of August 1, 2015, by and among CITIGROUP COMMERCIAL
MORTGAGE SECURITIES INC, as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, LNR PARTNERS, LLC, as Special Servicer, PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as Operating Advisor, CITIBANK, N.A., as Certificate Administrator and
DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, as Trustee , and WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as Custodian with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-P1 (the Agreement). Capitalized terms used herein not
otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 10.08 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober,
Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 (the Reporting Period), and of its performance per the Agreement during such
period has been made under my supervision, and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of
February 2017.



|                        
|------------------------
|LOGO                    
|                        
|Daniel Bober            
|Executive Vice President
|Wells Fargo Bank        



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
# C_2016098EN.01001501.xml

| 14.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 98/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 98/15

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 21 January 2016 — Kurt Hesse v Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs), Hubert Ampferl, as insolvency administrator of Lutter & Partner GmbH, formerly Lutter & Partner GmbH, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG

(Case C-50/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Community trade mark - Regulation (EC) No 40/94 - Article 8(1)(b) and (5) - Word mark Carrera - Opposition by the proprietor of the national and Community word marks CARRERA - Likelihood of confusion - Reputation acquired by the earlier mark))

(2016/C 098/18)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Kurt Hesse (represented by: M. Krogmann, Rechtsanwalt)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Schifko, acting as Agent), Hubert Ampferl, as insolvency administrator of Lutter & Partner GmbH, formerly Lutter & Partner GmbH, Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG (represented by: E. Stolz, Rechtsanwalt)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Mr Kurt Hesse to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Kurt Hesse to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.

1

---
# C_2014078EN.01001601.xml

| 15.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 78/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78/16

---

Action brought on 21 January 2014 — Genossenschaftskellerei Rosswag- Mühlhausen v OHIM (Lembergerland)

(Case T-55/14)

2014/C 78/32

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Genossenschaftskellerei Rosswag- Mühlhausen eG (Vaihingen an der Enz, Germany) (represented by H. Steffan, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 14 November 2013 in Case R 566/2013-1 relating to Community trade mark application No 11 134 947; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Board of Appeal of 14 November 2013 in Case R 566/2013-1 relating to Community trade mark application No 11 134 947;

| — | as regards the decision of the Board of Appeal of 14 November 2013 in Case R 566/2013-1, oblige the defendant to register the mark applied for; |
| --- | --- |

—

as regards the decision of the Board of Appeal of 14 November 2013 in Case R 566/2013-1, oblige the defendant to register the mark applied for;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Lembergerland’ for goods in Class 33 — Community trade mark application No 11 134 947

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Registration refused

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Appeal dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(j) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009.

Pleas in law:

---