alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-15 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 1 of 36
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-15 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 2 of 36
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-15 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 3 of 36
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-15 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 4 of 36
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-15 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 5 of 36
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-15 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 6 of 36
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-15 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 7 of 36
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-15 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 8 of 36
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-15 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 9 of 36
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-15 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 10 of 36
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-15 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 11 of 36
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-15 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 12 of 36
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-15 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 13 of 36
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-15 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 14 of 36
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-15 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 15 of 36
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-15 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 16 of 36
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-15 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 17 of 36
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-15 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 18 of 36
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-15 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 19 of 36
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-15 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 20 of 36
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-15 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 21 of 36
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-15 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 22 of 36
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-15 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 23 of 36
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-15 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 24 of 36
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-15 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 25 of 36
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-15 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 26 of 36
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-15 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 27 of 36
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-15 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 28 of 36
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-15 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 29 of 36
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-15 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 30 of 36
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-15 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 31 of 36
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-15 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 32 of 36
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-15 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 33 of 36
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-15 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 34 of 36
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-15 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 35 of 36
Case 2:02-cv-04435-AB Document 142-15 Filed 02/18/2005 Page 36 of 36
OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of December 11, 2000, by and among Structured Asset Securities Corporation as Depositor, First Union National Bank as Master Servicer, Lennar Partners, Inc. as Special Servicer, LaSalle Bank National Association as Trustee, and ABN AMRO Bank N.V. as Fiscal Agent with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2000-C5 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 3.13 of this Agreement, Timothy S. Ryan and William J. Vahey, Vice Presidents of the Master Servicer, do hereby certify that:

1 .	A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from December 21, 2000 through December 31, 2000 and of its performance under the Agreement during such period has been made under our supervision; and

2.	To the best of our knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its material obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the period December 21, 2000 through December 31, 2000; and

3.	The Master Servicer has received no notice regarding qualification, or challenging the status, of any REMIC Pool as a REMIC or the Grantor Trust as a grantor trust, from the IRS or any other governmental agency or body.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Certificate as of the 12th day of March, 2001.

 

Timothy S. Ryan, Vice President 	William J. Vahey, Vice President

First Union National Bank		First Union National Bank
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

: CIVIL ACTION NOS.

:

TAYLOR : 02-3877

JACKSON : 02-3879

LIAGA, et al. : 02-3920

KARGE, et al. : 02-3927

GREEN, et al. : 02-3942

MARKS : 02-3969

FULTZ : 02-3977

RACKLEY : 02-4118

THOMPSON, et al. : 02-4125

RUSSELL, et al. : 02-4127

ALCALA : 02-4131

ANDERSON : 02-4193

CAGAPE, et al. : 02-4227

MONZON, et al. : 02-4241

SANDOVAL, et al. : 02-4282

CHAPMAN, et al. : 02-4289

DUNHAM, et al. : 02-4304

FORTUNATO, et al. : 02-4315

:

VS. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION, et al. :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this day of July, 2002, the Court having been previously

advised that the above action cannot proceed to trial and disposition because of the following

reason:

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending disposition of a related

action.

[ ] - Order staying these proceedings pending determination of

arbitration proceedings.

[ ] - Interlocutory appeal filed.

[ X ] - Other: Case is placed into suspense pending receipt of the Case

Transfer Order from the Judicial Panel on Multi District Litigation

transferring case to District of Minnesota.

Case 2:02-cv-04241-JCJ Document 2 Filed 07/10/2002 Page 1 of 2
It is

ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mark this action closed for statistical purposes and

place the matter in the Civil Suspense File, and it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction; and that the case be

restored to the trial docket when the action is in a status so that it may proceed to final

disposition; this order shall not prejudice the rights of the parties to this litigation.

BY THE COURT:

________________________________________

J. Curtis Joyner, Judge

Case 2:02-cv-04241-JCJ Document 2 Filed 07/10/2002 Page 2 of 2
# C_2018052EN.01002602.xml

| 12.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — PB v Commission

(Case T-609/16) (1)

1

((Civil service - Officials - Recruitment - Competition notice EPSO/AD/309/15 (AD 11) - Doctors for the Luxembourg site - Refusal of admission to the tests at the assessment centre - Limitation of the choice of second language to a restricted number of official languages of the European Union - Objection of illegality - Manifest error of assessment - Liability - Non-pecuniary harm))

(2018/C 052/37)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: PB (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Gattinara and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application based on Article 270 TFEU and seeking, first, annulment of the decision of the selection board in Competition EPSO/AD/309/15 (AD 11) — Doctors for the sites of Luxembourg and Ispra (Field: Doctors Luxembourg) of 28 September 2015 not to admit the applicant to the selection tests held at the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) assessment centre and, second, compensation for the harm allegedly suffered by the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 28 September 2015 by which the selection board for Open Competition EPSO/AD/309/15 (AD 11) — Doctors for the sites of Luxembourg and Ispra (Field: Doctors Luxembourg) refused to admit PB to the selection tests held at the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) assessment centre; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 28 September 2015 by which the selection board for Open Competition EPSO/AD/309/15 (AD 11) — Doctors for the sites of Luxembourg and Ispra (Field: Doctors Luxembourg) refused to admit PB to the selection tests held at the European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) assessment centre;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the action; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the action;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016 (case initially registered before the European Union Civil Service Tribunal under number F-39/16 and transferred to the General Court of the European Union on 1.9.2016).

1

---
# C_2017300EN.01003101.xml

| 11.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/31

---

Order of the General Court of 19 July 2017 — HI v Commission

(Case T-464/16 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Civil service – - Project funded by the European Union - Conflict of interest - Disciplinary action - Downgrading - Dismissal of the action at first instance - Appeal in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded))

(2017/C 300/38)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellant: HI (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Single Judge) of 10 June 2016, HI v Commission (F-133/15, EU:F:2016:127), seeking to have that judgment set aside.

HI

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | HI shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission in the context of the present proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

HI shall bear its own costs and pay those incurred by the European Commission in the context of the present proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 10.10.2016.

1

---
EXHIBIT 21



LIST OF THE PHOENIX COMPANIES, INC. SUBSIDIARIES



|                                                 |  |                              
|------------------------------------------------ |  | -----------------------------
|Name                                             |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|1851 Securities, Inc.                            |  | Delaware                     
|AGL Life Insurance Company                       |  | Pennsylvania                 
|American Phoenix Life and Reassurance Company    |  | Connecticut                  
|Goodwin Capital Advisers, Inc.                   |  | New York                     
|Holland Re Holdings, LLC                         |  | Delaware                     
|Holland Re, Inc.                                 |  | South Carolina               
|Next Generation Ventures LLC                     |  | Connecticut                  
|PFG Holdings, Inc.                               |  | Pennsylvania                 
|Philadelphia Financial Group, Inc.               |  | Delaware                     
|PHL Variable Insurance Company                   |  | Connecticut                  
|Phoenix Distribution Holding Company             |  | Connecticut                  
|Phoenix Equity Planning Corporation              |  | Delaware                     
|The Phoenix Foundation                           |  | Connecticut                  
|Phoenix Founders, Inc.                           |  | Connecticut                  
|Phoenix International Capital Corporation        |  | Connecticut                  
|Phoenix Investment Management Company            |  | Connecticut                  
|Phoenix Life and Annuity Company                 |  | Connecticut                  
|Phoenix Life and Reassurance Company of New York |  | New York                     
|Phoenix Life Insurance Company                   |  | New York                     
|Phoenix Life Solutions, Inc.                     |  | Delaware                     
|Phoenix National Trust Holding Company           |  | Connecticut                  
|Phoenix New England Trust Holding Company        |  | Connecticut                  
|Phoenix Variable Advisors, Inc.                  |  | Delaware                     
|PM Holdings, Inc.                                |  | Connecticut                  
|PML International Insurance Limited              |  | Bermuda                      
|PractiCare, Inc.                                 |  | Delaware                     
|Saybrus Holdings, Inc.                           |  | Delaware                     
|Saybrus Partners, Inc.                           |  | Delaware                     
|The Phoenix Companies, Inc.                      |  | Delaware
Wyoming Nitrate Contribution to Theodore Roosevelt

Worst

site Year modelrun param N SReg PT AF MV Nat Area Total

THRO1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 19 WY 0.0351368 0.0001158 0.0240211 0.0018 0.0082368 0.0693105

Wyoming's 2002 Contribution (20% Worst) to Nitrate at Theodore Roosevelt = 0.07 divided by 1.7, or 4%

Best

site Year modelrun param N SReg PT AF MV Nat Area Total

THRO1 2002 plan02c36k PN3 18 WY 0.0500611 0.0001056 0.03255 0.0045611 0.01345 0.1007278

Wyoming's 2002 Contribution (20% Best) to Nitrate at Theodore Roosevelt = 0.1 divided by 1.4, or 7%
# C_2016364EN.01005702.xml

| 3.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 364/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/57

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — Stanley v Commission

(Case F-5/16) (1)

((Civil service - Member of the contract staff - Request under Article 90(1) of the Staff Regulations - Request for reclassification of a contract - Reasonable period - None - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2016/C 364/75)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: John Stanley (Apia, Samoa) (represented by: O. Mader, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Berscheid and C. Berardis-Kayser, acting as Agents, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Re:

Annulment of the Commission’s decision not to reclassify the applicant’s contract as a temporary staff contract or, in the alternative, compensation for the material damage alleged to have been suffered.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible.

| 2. | Mr John Stanley shall bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr John Stanley shall bear his own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 145, 25/4/2016, p. 37.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 22-0748 THAD WHITE,

Petitioner and Appellant, v. MONTANA BOARD OF CRIME CONTROL,

Respondent and Appellee, and PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS STANDARDS & TRAINING COUNCIL,

Intervenor. 

# FILED JUL 1 8 2023 Bowen Greenwood Clerk of Supreme Court Stata of Montana ORDER

Appellant Thad White was granted an extension oftimeto file and serve the opening brief on or before May 17, 2023. Appellant did not timely file an opening brief, and on May 31, 2023, this Court ordered that Appellant prepare, file, and serve the opening brief no later than June 30, 2023. Nothing further has been filed. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. TheClerk is directed to provide copies ofthis Orderto Thad White andto all counsel ofrecord. DATED thisi Cr day ofJuly, 2023.
ChiefJustice 07/18/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0748

### (94 Ai -PUL
Justices

2
No. 58484.

protest 208801-K (Boston).

#### Abbott, Hall & Co. *v.*United States,

*414Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of tins of sardines in added sild oil, packed in cartons of 50 tins per carton; that the added sild oil was assessed at three-fourths of 1 cent per pound under section 2491 (a), as modified, *supra,*at 2.50 kilos per carton, being the amount of added sild oil per case of 100 tins; and that the added sild oil in the importation which is subject to the said tax is only 1.25 kilos per carton. Upon the agreed facts, it was held that the internal revenue tax should have been assessed on the basis of 1.25 kilos per carton, based upon a quantity of 50 tins.
# C_2015328EN.01001201.xml

| 5.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/12

---

Action brought on 14 July 2015 — DIMA Verwaltungs v OHIM (Shape of a container)

(Case T-383/15)

(2015/C 328/11)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: DIMA Verwaltungs GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: T. Kerkhoff, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Trade mark at issue: Three-dimensional Community trade mark (Shape of a container) — Application for registration No 12 649 364

Trade mark at issue:

Contested decision: Decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 27 March 2015 in Case R 2568/2014-5

Contested decision

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

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

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order the defendant to resume the registration procedure; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to resume the registration procedure;

| — | in the alternative, declare that Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 does not preclude the registration and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, declare that Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 does not preclude the registration and refer the case back to the Board of Appeal;

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

—

order OHIM to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
# C_2017402EN.01003202.xml

| 27.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 402/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 October 2017 — Karelia v EUIPO (KARELIA)

(Case T-878/16) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark ‘KARELIA’ - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2017/C 402/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ino Karelia (Kalamata, Greece) (represented by: M. Karpathakis, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: L. Rampini, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 September 2016 (Case R 1562/2015-5), relating to an application for registration of the word sign ‘KARELIA’ as an EU trade mark

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Ms Ino Karelia to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Ms Ino Karelia to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 6.2.2017.

1

---
No. 66753.

#### Hershey & Co. *v.*United States,

protest 61/4045.

Protest abandoned March 13, 1962. (Not published.) (Initial No. 286583-K.) Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
Page 1 of 2 IRC Handout 04/20/2022 

FY 22 Streamlined Balance Sheet Modifications: Other Assets/Other Liabilities 

Effective FY 22 Reporting 

1) USSGL 199000F “Other Assets” (Federal) 

 Moving From Line 3.4 Accounts receivable, net (RC 22) 

 To New Line 6.3 Other assets – Reimbursable activities (RC 22) 

2) USSGL 219000F “Other Liabilities With Related Budgetary Obligations” (Federal)

 Moving From Line 22.2 Accounts payable (RC 22) 

 To New Line 26.6 Other liabilities - Reimbursable activities (RC 22) 

3) USSGL 299000F “Other Liabilities Without Related Budgetary Obligations” (Federal) 

 Moving From Line 22.2 Accounts payable (RC 22) 

 To New Line 26.6 Other liabilities - Reimbursable activities (RC 22) 
Page 2 of 2 IRC Handout 04/20/2022 

FY 23 Streamlined Balance Sheet Modifications: Interest Receivable/Payable 

Effective FY 23 Reporting 

1) USSGL 134000F “Interest Receivable – Not Otherwise Classified” (Federal) 

 Moving From Line 4.1 Interest receivable, loans and not otherwise classified (RC 04) 

 To Line 3.4 Accounts receivable, net (RC 22) 

2) USSGL 214000F “Accrued Interest Payable – Not Otherwise Classified” (Federal)

 Moving From Line 24.1 Interest payable – loans and not otherwise classified (RC 04) 

 To Line 22.2 Accounts payable (RC 22)
No. 49099.

#### Protest 102830-K of Greig, Lawrence & Hoyt, Ltd. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the 1 case of whisky claimed to have been short-shipped was not imported into the United States, and further that the customs regulations had been complied with. In accordance therewith the collector was directed to reliquidate the entry and make an allowance for the shortage claimed.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED DECEMBER 14, 2023

NO. 03

- 23

- 00741

- CR

The State of Texas , Appellant

v.

Stephan Anthony Burney , Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 466TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES K ELLY AND THEOFANIS

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION

-- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE

This is an appeal from the order of mistrial entered by the tr i a l court

. The State of Texas has

filed a motion t o dismiss the appeal. Therefore, the Court grants the motion, allows The State of

Texas to withdraw its notice of appeal, and dismisses the appeal. The appellant shall pay all

costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
No. 63037.

#### David Chow & Co. and Castelazo & Associates *v.*United States,

protest 274624-K (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

In

accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of iron pictures the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Marshall Field & Co.*v. *United States*(45 C.C.P.A. 72, C.A.D. 676), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.