alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In re Petition of FRESCATI SHIPPING )

CO., LTD. as Owner of the M/T )

ATHOS I, for Exoneration from ) Civil Action No. 05-cv-305 (JHS)

or Limitation of Liability, )

)

) CONSOLIDATED

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

 Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 08-cv-2898 (JHS)

)

 v. )

)

CITGO ASPHALT REFINING ) 

COMPANY, CITGO PETROLEUM )

CORPORATION, and CITGO EAST )

COAST OIL CORPORATION, )

)

 Defendants. )

NOTICE OF APPEAL

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the United States of America, plaintiff in the 

captioned consolidated action Civil No. 08-cv-2898 (JHS), hereby appeals to the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from the Final Order of Judgment (No. 888 in Civil 

Action No. 05-cv-305) entered on August 17, 2016. This appeal includes that Final Order of 

Judgment, as well as all other rulings and orders adverse to the United States in these 

consolidated actions that are reviewable in this appeal. 
2

Dated: October 14, 2016

Respectfully submitted,

BENJAMIN C. MIZER

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General

ZANE DAVID MEMEGER

United States Attorney

MARGARET L. HUTCHINSON

Chief, Civil Division

/s/ Stephen G. Flynn

STEPHEN G. FLYNN

Assistant Director Admiralty

SARAH S. KEAST

Trial Attorney

Torts Branch, Civil Division

Department of Justice

Post Office Box 14271

Washington, D.C. 20044-4271

Telephone: (202) 616-4070

Facsimile: (202) 616-4002

Stephen.Flynn@usdoj.gov

Sarah.Keast@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff United States
3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on October 14, 2016, I served the foregoing Notice of Appeal

on the following counsel of record by way of the CM/ECF system which will provide each 

counsel a copy by electronic mail. 

Derek Walker, Esq.

J. Dwight LeBlanc, Jr. Esq

Chaffe McCall, LLP

1100 Poydras St.

New Orleans, LA 71063-2300

Richard Q. Whelan, Esq. .

Frank P. DeGiulio, Esq.

Palmer Biezup & Henderson LLP

956 Public Ledger Building

620 Chestnut Street

Philadelphia, PA 19106-3409

Alfred J. Kuffler, Esq.

Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP

123 South Broad St.

Philadelphia, PA 19109

John J. Levy, Esq.

Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP

457 Haddonfield Rd., Suite 600

Cherry Hill, NJ 08200

/s/ Stephen G. Flynn

STEPHEN G. FLYNN

Assistant Director Admiralty

SARAH S. KEAST

Trial Attorney

Torts Branch, Civil Division

U.S. Department of Justice

P.O. Box 14271

Washington, DC 20044-4271

Telephone: (202) 616-4070

Stephen.Flynn@usdoj.gov

Sarah.Keast@usdoj.gov
Case Wo. 5,265.

#### GASSETT et al. v. PALMER et al.

[3 McLean, 105.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Michigan.

Oct. Term, 1842.

Pleading at Law — Caption op the Declaration —Venue—Othee Averments.

1. It is sufficient to state the title of the court in the caption of the declaration.

2. The venue if substantially laid is sufficient. And so of other averments in the declaration.

At law.

Joy & Porter, for plaintiffs.

Romeyn & Lee, for defendants.

OPINION OP THE COURT.

This is an action of assumpsit on a note. To the first count in the declaration the defendants [Palmer & Clarke] demur, and plead non assumpsit to the other counts.

To the first count it is objected that the caption of the declaration is insufficient, as it does not state in what circuit court of the United States it was filed. The declaration commences, “Circuit Court of the United States, District of Michigan;” and then the names in which the parties contracted is stated and their citizenship alleged, which is followed, (speaking of defendants.) citizens of “the state of Michigan, against whom the declaration is filed.” This we think is sufficient. The caption names the court in which the suit was commenced, and the declaration filed.

It is also objected that the venue is not sufficiently stated. The venue is laid “at Boston, in the state of Massachusetts, to wit, at Monroe, in the county of Monroe, and district aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of this court.” This is sufficient. The third objection, “that no time nor place is stated in the first count for the promise of the defendants to pay to the order of Henry Gassett & Co.,” is without foundation. The promise is laid at Boston, aforesaid, to wit, at Monroe, within the district aforesaid, and within the jurisdiction of the court, and the note is set out

It is again objected, there is no allegation that Henry Gassett & Co. are the plaintiffs, or that they constituted the firm at the date of the note. The names of the firm are expressly stated, as constituting the firm to whom the note was given. So that it is unnecessary to say, whether it was essential for the plaintiffs to allege their names be*83yond the firm, as stated on the face of the note.

The demurrer is overruled.
# C_2018032EN.01002401.xml

| 29.1.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 32/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.1.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 32/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2017 — Tulliallan Burlington v EUIPO — Burlington Fashion (BURLINGTON THE ORIGINAL)

(Case T-121/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - International registration designating the European Union - Figurative mark BURLINGTON THE ORIGINAL - Earlier national word marks BURLINGTON and BURLINGTON ARCADE - Earlier EU and national figurative marks BURLINGTON ARCADE - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001) - Use in the course of trade of a sign of more than mere local significance - Article 8(4) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(4) of Regulation 2017/1001) - Unfair advantage taken of the distinctive character or the repute of the earlier trade marks - Article 8(5) of Regulation No 207/2009 (now Article 8(5) of Regulation 2017/1001)))

(2018/C 032/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Tulliallan Burlington Ltd (St Helier, Jersey) (represented by: A. Norris, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: M. Fischer, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Burlington Fashion GmbH (Schmallenberg, Germany) (represented by: A. Parr, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 January 2016 (Case R 2501/2013-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Tulliallan Burlington and Burlington Fashion.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Tulliallan Burlington Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Tulliallan Burlington Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 175, 17.5.2016.

1

---
Exhibit 10.1


 





 


	
  FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

  	
   

  	
  For More Information Contact:

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Robert J. Weatherbie

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Chief Executive Officer

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Team Financial, Inc.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  (913) 294-9667

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  bob.weatherbie@teamfinancialinc.com

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  



 


Team
Financial, Inc. Announces Steps Taken to Enhance Capital Position


 


Paola,
Kansas, June 24, 2008 - Team Financial, Inc. (NASDAQ: TFIN) today
announced that it has selected Sandler O’Neill + Partners, L.P. to serve as
financial advisor to assist the Company and its Board with respect to its
analysis of strategic alternatives, including capital planning efforts to
better position the Company for future opportunities.


 


The
Company also announced that it has suspended paying cash dividends on its
common stock in order to enhance its capital position.  The move is in response to the current
operating environment as the Company seeks higher levels of capital during the
current economic cycle.


 


“We
recognize that dividend payments are important to our shareholders.  However, we are taking this action to strengthen
our balance sheet and capital position. 
The protection of long-term shareholder value is essential in light of
our current operating environment,” said Robert J. Weatherbie, Chairman and CEO
of Team Financial, Inc.


 


Management
estimates that the dividend suspension will result in the Company retaining
approximately $1.1 million of capital per year. 
While the Company expects to reassess the feasibility of dividend
payments quarterly and hopes to reinstate dividends when capital levels and the
operating environment improve, the timing of any future dividends is not known.


 

















 


FORWARD-LOOKING
STATEMENTS


 


 


This
press release contains forward-looking statements under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 that are subject to certain risks and
uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from
historical income and those presently anticipated or projected.  The
Company cautions readers not to place undue reliance on any such forward
looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this release.  Such
risks and uncertainties include those detailed in the Company’s filings with
the Securities and Exchange Commission, including the Company’s Form 10-K/A
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 and its Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended March 31, 2008, risks of adverse changes in results of
operations, risks related to the Company’s expansion strategies, risks relating
to loans and investments, including the effect of the change of the economic
conditions in areas the Company’s borrowers are located, risks associated with
the adverse effects of governmental regulation, 
changes in regulatory oversight, interest rates, and competition for the
Company’s customers by other providers of financial services, all of which are
difficult to predict and many of which are beyond the control of the Company.
* This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### August 24, 2010 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT
BIGLER JOBE STOUFFER, II, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 10-6018 v. (W.D. Oklahoma) JOHN WHETSEL, Sheriff; WES LANE, District Attorney Oklahoma County; JERRY BASS, Honorable State District Judge Oklahoma County, Respondents - Appellees. (D.C. No. 02-cv-01659-C)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
Before KELLY , McKAY , and LUCERO , Circuit Judges.
On September 4, 2009, in Case No. 03-6093, we found that fees deducted from Appellant’s prison account were improperly applied to his appeal in that case. We remanded for the district court to “review its case records to determine whether the payments attributable to the instant appeal should have been applied in another case or appeal.” (Order at 2.) The district court followed our-2- direction. It determined that Appellant’s partial payments should be applied to other cases in which Appellant owes fees, Case Nos. 94-cv-1395, 04-cv-14, and 09-cv-320. Appellant seeks a certificate of appealability to challenge that order. However, it cannot reasonably be debated that the trial court’s order is correct. See Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). We therefore DENYa certificate of appealability and DISMISS this appeal. We do, however, GRANT Appellant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis
. ENTERED FOR THE COURT Monroe G. McKay Circuit Judge
Midland Loan Services

 

210 West 10th Street   Kansas City, Misouri 64105

816-435-5000     816-435-2326

Management's Assertion on Compliance with the Minimum Servicing

Standards Set Forth in the *Uniform Single Attestation Program for
Mortgage Bankers

Report of Management

We, as members of management of Midland Loan Services, Inc. (MLS), an indirectly wholly owned subsidiary of The PNC Financial Services, Group, Inc.. (PNC), are responsible for complying with the minimum servicing standards as set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's *Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers*(USAP) except for commercial loan and multifamily servicing, minimum servicing standards V.4 and VI.1, which the Mortgage Bankers Association of America has interpreted as inapplicable to such servicing. We are also responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over compliance with these standards. We have performed an evaluation of MLS' compliance with the minimum servicing standards as set forth in the USAP as of December 31, 2001, and for the year then ended. Based on this evaluation, we assert that during the year ended December 31, 2001, MILS complied, in all material respects, with the minimum servicing standards set forth in the USAP.

As of and for this same period, PNC had in effect a fidelity bond in the amount of $300,000,000 and an errors and omissions policy in the amount of $75,000,000.

MIDLAND LOAN SERVICES, INC.
*Steven W. SmithVincent E. Beckett
February 15, 2002

PNC Real Estate Finance Company

Steven W. Smith

Executive Vice President

Vincent E Beckett

Senior Vice President

 **
February 24, 1999

Presentation to the SGL Board

Expended Authority, Transferred - Unpaid

Unpaid obligations may be transferred from one TAFS account to another.  This transfer does not change the amounts reported on line 1 or line 8 of the SF 133.  Line 13 of the SF 133 is used, instead of lines 1 and 8, to report transfers of unpaid obligations made during the current fiscal year.  

In this scenario, SGL account 4195, Transfer of Resources with Obligations and proposed SGL account 4931, Expended Authority, Transferred-Unpaid are used to capture the transfer of expended authority that has not been paid .  Entries are shown for the transferring TAFS account and the receiving TAFS account.

Expended Authority, Transferred - Unpaid

**Account Title:**Expended Authority, Transferred- Unpaid

**Account Number:**4931

**Normal Balance:**Either

**Type of Account:**Posting

Definition: The amount of unpaid expenditures transferred to or from another appropriation.  Unpaid expenditures are for : (a) services performed by employees, contractors, vendors, carriers, grantees, lessor, and other government funds; (b) goods and tangible property received; and (c) programs for which no current service or performance is required (i. e., annuities, insurance claims, other benefit payments, loans, etc.).

1
December 18, 2014 Office ofthe Chief Counsel Attention: FAA Part 16 Docket Clerk, AGC-600 Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Avenue S.W. Washington, D.C. 20591 

## THE PORTAUTHORITYOF NY& 

## NJ Darrell Buchbinder, General Counsel

Re: United Airlines, Inc. v. The Port Authority of NewYork and NewJersey (Docket FAA-16-14-.A:l_) Ladies and Gentlemen: The PortAuthority of New York and NewJersey, operator and airport sponsor of Newark Liberty International Airport, has been served with the Complaint filed against it by United Airlines underthe 14 C.F.R. Part 16. The filing is aflagrant abuse ofthe Part 16 process that ignores longstanding precedent in this area when the relationship ofthe parties is governed by an agreement. As such, the Port Authority will be filing a motion seeking dismissal ofthe Complaint, in its entirety, with prejudice, pursuant to and within the time permitted by the applicable Rules of Practice forthese proceedings. Respectfully,



# (;j~ 

# 1/
.. (J&

**~;>** Carlene V. Mcintyre Assistant General Counsel Port Authority of NewYork and NewJersey cc: Keith J. Harrison Gerald F. Murphy Stephen 

### J. Seiden Crowell 

### & Moring LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 RobertS. Span Alan K. Steinbrecher Sophy Chen Steinbrecher 

### & Span LLP 1155 FStreet, N.W. Suite 1050 Washington, D.C. 20004
/.?5 PorkAvenue South New J\JY 70005
MEMORANDUM

TO: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0133 

FROM: Scott Christian, Environmental Engineer, OAR/OTAQ/CISD 

SUBJECT: Calculating the price for cellulosic biofuel waiver credits 

DATE: September 30, 2011 

In order to calculate the price of the cellulosic biofuel waiver credits, EPA determined the 

average wholesale (refinery gate) price of gasoline using the following monthly prices which 

were taken from EIA 

(http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMA_EPM0_PBR_NUS_DPG&f=M) 

These values were the most recent 12 months of data available to EPA on September 30th, 2011. 

Month Average Price in cents 

JUL 2010 2.018 

AUG 2010 1.999 

SEP 2010 1.977 

OCT 2010 2.079 

NOV 2010 2.130 

DEC 2010 2.248 

JAN 2011 2.406 

FEB 2011 2.481 

MAR 2011 2.824 

APR 2011 3.104 

MAY 2011 3.107 

JUN 2011 2.902 

Average monthly price in dollars for 12 month period: 2.439583 dollars, rounded to $2.44 

The Act called for EPA to adjust the comparison values of twenty-five cents and three dollars for 

inflation. EPA must compare the inflated twenty-five cent value with amount the amount the 

inflated three dollar value exceeds the average wholesale price of gasoline which we have 

determined to be $2.44. EPA is required to use the greater of the two values as the price for 

cellulosic biofuel waiver credits. 

EPA evaluated inflation by using the Unadjusted Index values Consumer Price Index for All 

Urban Consumers (CPI-U) - All Items for the months of January 2009, the first comparable 

value after 2008 and August 2011 the month of the most recent data EPA had available when 

setting the standard. 
Inflation calculation 

August 2011: 226.545 (From: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1108.pdf) 

January 2009 211.143 (From: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid0901.pdf) (The first comparable value 

after 2008) 

$0.25 * (1+(226.545-211.143)/211.143) = $0.268236, rounded to $0.27 

$3.00 * (1+(226.545-211.143)/211.143) = $3.218837, rounded to $3.22 

Calculating the Price of Cellulosic Waiver Credits 

$3.22-$2.44=$0.78 

Since $0.78 cents is greater than $0.26. EPA is setting the cellulosic biofuel waiver credit price 

at $0.78 

Attached Copies of data sources:

Page 1: EIA US Total Gasoline Bulk Sales (Price) by Refiners (Cents per Gallon) as viewed on 

09/30/2010, 

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=EMA_EPM0_PBR_NUS_DPG&f=M

Page 2: Table 1. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): U.S. city average, by 

expenditure category and commodity and service group. From the January 2009 CPI Detailed 

Report, page 46, as viewed on 09/30/2010, http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid0901.pdf

Page 3: Table 1. Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): U.S. city average, by 

expenditure category and commodity and service group. From the June 2010 CPI Detailed 

Report, page 4, as viewed on 09/30/2010, http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid1108.pdf
No. 51926.

#### L. Solomon & Son, Inc. *v.*United States,

petition 6589-R (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

From the evidence produced at the trial it appeared that there was an honest difference of opinion as to the dutiable value of the merchandise and that the importer filed an appeal for reappraisement from the appraiser’s finding of value, which appeal was considered a test case in order to obtain a judicial determination of the issue. Upon the record presented the court was satisfied that there was no intent on the part of the importer to deceive the appraiser or defraud the Government. The petition was therefore granted.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 99-45

                          MONTHLY SERVICER CERTIFICATE



         Pursuant to Section 4.01(d)(ii) of the Securitization Property
Servicing Agreement, dated as of March 9, 2001 (the "Agreement"), between The
Detroit Edison Company, as servicer (the "Servicer") and The Detroit Edison
Securitization Funding LLC, the Servicer does hereby certify as follows:

         Capitalized terms used herein have their respective meanings as set
forth in the Agreement.

For the Monthly Period: October 2003

<TABLE>
<S><C>
1.        BILLINGS:

a)       Monthly kWh Consumption:    3,484,673,219
                                     -------------
b)       Applicable SB Charge:           $ 0.00336
                                         ---------
c)       Total SB Charge Amount Invoiced this Month (Net of .5% uncollectible factor):   $ 11,648,648.58
                                                                                         ---------------
d)       Cumulative SB Charge Amount Invoiced this Remittance Period:                    $144,801,877.06
                                                                                         ---------------

2.        REMITTANCES:

a)       Weighted Average Days outstanding:                               48
                                                                          --
b)       Total Amount Remitted this Month:                   $ 15,483,259.37
                                                             ---------------
c)       Cumulative Amount Remitted this Remittance Period:  $145,396,399.54
                                                             ---------------

3.        BALANCES ON SUBACCOUNTS (AT END OF MONTHLY PERIOD):

a)       Collection Account Balance:                       $ 30,050,959.99
                                                           ---------------
b)       Reserve Subaccount Balance:                       $ 10,748,145.78
                                                           ---------------
c)       Series Overcollateralization Subaccount Balance:   $ 1,562,655.69
                                                            --------------
d)       Series Capital Subaccount Balance:                 $ 8,752,447.94
                                                            --------------
</TABLE>

Executed as of November 13, 2003.


                                        THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY
                                        as Servicer



                                        By: /s/ Peter B. Oleksiak
                                            ------------------------------------
                                        Name: Peter B. Oleksiak
                                        Title: Director and Assistant Controller
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 Westsphere Asset Corporation, Inc.  (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31. 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kim Law, Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1)

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2)

The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date:  April 15, 2005

By:

/s/ Kim Law



Name: Kim Law

Title:   Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer
No. 55181.

#### Hemisphere International Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 162550-K (A) (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The protest was dismissed.
No. 56973.

#### W. A. Cleary Corp. and W. R. Keating & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 190517-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of lecithin similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *C. J. Tower & Sons*(38 C. C. P. A. 131, C. A. D. 450), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.