alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 52719.

protest 134342-K (New York).

#### Rohner, Gehrig *&*Co., Inc. v. United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the issues and facts herein are similar to those involved in *United States*v. *Wshington State Liquor Control Board*(34 C. C. P. A. 118, C. A. D. 352) and that duties were assessed' in liquidation upon 1,000 watch movements which were short at the time of unloading of the importing vessel. In accordance with stipulation and following the decision cited it was held that all duties collected upon the 1,000 watch movements in question should be refunded. The protest was sustained to this extent.
#### Johnny NARCISSE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ross MAGGIO, Jr., Warden Louisiana State Penitentiary, Angola, La., Respondent-Appellee.

No. 84-4080.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 6, 1984.

Michael S. Fawer, New Orleans, La., for petitioner-appellant.

Michael Harson, Asst. Dist. Atty., Parish of Lafayette, Lafayette, La., for respondent-appellee.

Before POLITZ, GARWOOD, and HIG-GINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The application for a certificate of probable cause and a stay of execution is granted. Petitioner has raised questions regarding the adequacy of his appointed counsel’s performance sufficient to warrant an eviden-tiary hearing and we hereby remand this case to the United States District Court for that hearing. At the hearing which we urge be concluded with dispatch, petitioner should be offered a full opportunity to develop evidence regarding his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

While we do not intend to confine the development of petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel at the hearing on remand, the focus of the argument before us, and the concern we now have, revolve around the failure to preserve the right to question the legality of the search, and the failure to adequately develop the mental state of petitioner at the time of the offense, including the presentation of allegedly available evidence of the effect at the time of the offense of the prior drug use testified to by petitioner. We express no opinion as to the ultimate merits of petitioner’s claims.

We are persuaded of this course in part by the circumstance that this is petitioner’s first federal habeas, there is no hint of writ abuse, no evidentiary hearing has been conducted to test petitioner’s assertions in any court, state or federal, and the measure of constitutionally adequate counsel and relat-edly the role of the harmless error principle are now before the United States Supreme Court in two cases argued on January 10, 1984. In sum in the unique posture of this case a remand is in the interest of both the *970State and petitioner, because while we wait the decision by the Supreme Court this case will not languish but will be proceeding. With the factual questions laid to rest we can then apply the standards announced by the Supreme Court.

REMANDED.
Exhibit 32.4

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Winton Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Winton Series.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                                         
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                       
|Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                           
|President and Chief Executive Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of Winton Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund
|                                                                                                                                         
|/s/ Brent Bales                                                                                                                          
|Brent Bales                                                                                                                              
|Chief Financial Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of Winton Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund              

Date: May 14, 2008
# C_2007140EN.01003402.xml

| 23.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 140/34 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 140/34

---

Action brought on 23 April 2007 — Suez v OHIM (Delivering the essentials of life)

(Case T-128/07)

(2007/C 140/58)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: Suez SA (Paris, France) (represented by: P. Combeau, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | Annulment of the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of the contested decision;

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

—

OHIM to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘Delivering the essentials of life’ for goods and services in Classes 1, 9, 11, 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 and 42 (Application No 4 102 497)

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the examiner: Refusal to register

Decision of the examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 40/94 (1), in that, contrary to the finding of the Board of Appeal of OHIM in the contested decision, the mark for which registration is sought has no strictly laudatory connotation and does not describe a characteristic or quality of the goods or services which it serves to designate.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)

1

---
# C_2007162EN.01000501.xml

| 14.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 162/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 162/5

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

13 July 2007

(2007/C 162/03)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3782 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 168,68 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4416 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,67795 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1560 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,6579 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 82,92 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,9130 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5842 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,318 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 245,70 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6969 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,7487 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,1340 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 33,238 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,7540 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5879 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4414 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,7756 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7531 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0877 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 263,74 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,5926 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,4323 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2900 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 434,81 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7479 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 62,915 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 35,0920 |
| THB | Thai baht | 41,996 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3782

JPY

Japanese yen

168,68

DKK

Danish krone

7,4416

GBP

Pound sterling

0,67795

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1560

CHF

Swiss franc

1,6579

ISK

Iceland króna

82,92

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,9130

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5842

CZK

Czech koruna

28,318

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

245,70

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6969

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,7487

RON

Romanian leu

3,1340

SKK

Slovak koruna

33,238

TRY

Turkish lira

1,7540

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5879

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4414

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,7756

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7531

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0877

KRW

South Korean won

1 263,74

ZAR

South African rand

9,5926

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,4323

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2900

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 434,81

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7479

PHP

Philippine peso

62,915

RUB

Russian rouble

35,0920

THB

Thai baht

41,996

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
# C_2007140EN.01002502.xml

| 23.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 140/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 140/25

---

Action brought on 11 April 2007 — L'Oréal v OHIM — Spa Monopole (SPA THERAPY)

(Case T-109/07)

(2007/C 140/45)

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Applicant: L'Oréal SA (Paris, France) (represented by: E. Baud, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: SA Spa Monopole, Compagnie fermière de Spa, en abrégé SA Spa Monople NV (Spa, Belgium)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM:

Form of order sought

| — | Annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM given on 24 January 2007 (Case R 468/2005-4); |
| --- | --- |

—

Annulment of the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM given on 24 January 2007 (Case R 468/2005-4);

| — | The defendant and, where appropriate the intervener, to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

The defendant and, where appropriate the intervener, to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘SPA THERAPY’ for goods in Class 3 — application No 1 975 283

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: SA Spa Monopole, Compagnie fermière de Spa, en abrégé SA Spa Monopole NV

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The Benelux word mark ‘SPA’ for goods in Class 3

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Opposition upheld in respect of all the disputed goods

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the applicant's appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) in so far as the Board of Appeal erred in finding that the signs at issue are similar and in that, according to the applicant, there is no likelihood of confusion in the present case

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1)

1

---
Exhibit 10.23

CONTINGENT ADDENDUM TO LEASE AGREEMENT

THIS IS PREPARED WITH THE
CONTINGENCY OF THE RENTAL OF THE FOLLOWING MENTIONED PROPERTY. ADDENDUM TO LEASE DATED 15th OF NOVEMBER WITH A MOVE IN DATE OF NOVEMBER 15, 2011 BETWEEN HENRY AMALGAMATED LLC, (LESSOR) AND ANGIES LIST, INC., (LESSEE).

WHEREAS, Lessor and Lessee entered into the lease agreement dated March 1, 2009 for office space.

NOW THEREFORE, it is agreed that the Lease Agreement is hereby modified and amended in the following respects to be effective
November 15, 2011 with a move in date of November 15, 2011. WIT:



| | 1. | Paragraph (1) (Description of Premises) Lessor hereby leases additional office space known as the following to the lessee: 1032 E Washington Street 46202.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Paragraph (4) (Rent) The amount for the additional office space with square footage of 4,600 will be $4,217.00 a month.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Except as specifically mentioned herein, all other terms and conditions of the original Lease Agreement shall remain the same and
unchanged

Henry Amalgamated LLC

Lessor



|                  |  |  |  |       |  |            |  | 
|----------------- |  |  |  | ----- |  | ---------- |  | 
|/s/ Karl Northern |  |  |  | Date: |  | 12/20/2011

Angies List, Inc

Lessee



|                      |  |  |  |       |  |            |  | 
|--------------------- |  |  |  | ----- |  | ---------- |  | 
|/s/ Robert R. Millard |  |  |  | Date: |  | 12/20/2011
Modeling-related citations & documents for AZ FIP NFRM docket

sjb 2012-11-14

Modeling documents (all are EPA work products)

“Modeling files explanation and list”

readme_modeling_files_NFR1.txt

“Revised PM Speciation for Cholla Unit 2”

2006FinalDryBottomPC_FGD_FFpmSpeciationProfile_ChollaUnit2-filtPM.xls

“Cholla merged stack impacts”

Cholla_mrg23_visx_table.xls

“Cholla remodeling inputs and outputs”

Cholla_NFR_remodeling.xls

“Coronado SCR impacts”

Coronado_base_p_visx.xls

Modeling-related documents cited

(some of these are already in the docket from the proposal)

Interagency Workgroup On Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM) Phase 2 Summary Report And 

Recommendations For Modeling Long Range Transport Impacts (EPA-454/R-98-019), EPA 

OAQPS, December 1998, http://www.epa.gov/scram001/7thconf/calpuff/phase2.pdf

IWAQM_phase2.pdf

[guidance document, already in docket for proposal]

Proposed Rule: Source Specific Federal Implementation Plan for Implementing Best Available 

Retrofit Technology for Four Corners Power Plant: Navajo Nation Technical Support Document

FCPP Technical Support Document 10-6-10.pdf

[Oct. 6, 2010, EPA rulemaking]

Measurements of Ambient Background Ammonia on the Colorado Plateau and Visibility 

Modeling Implications, Salt River Project, Dr. Ivar Tombach, Consultant, and Robert Paine, 

AECOM Environment, September 2010

NH3 Monitoring Report 2010-09-22.pdf

[Sep., 2010, Public comment] [this is “Exhibit B” of APS’s comments]

Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related Values Work Group (FLAG) Phase I Report—

Revised (2010), U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service, 

October 2010. http://www.nature.nps.gov/air/Pubs/pdf/flag/FLAG_2010.pdf

FLAG_2010.pdf

[Oct. 2010, guidance document]
“CALPUFF Regulatory Update”, Roger W. Brode, Presentation at Regional/State/Local 

Modelers Workshop, June 10–12, 2008; 

http://www.cleanairinfo.com/regionalstatelocalmodelingworkshop/archive/2008/agenda.htm

BRODE_CA.pdf

[Additional document; June, 2008]

Estimating Total Sulfuric Acid Emissions from Stationary Power Plants, Version 2010a, 

1020636, Technical Update, Electric Power Research Institute, April 2010)

2010 epri report h2so4.pdf

[Additional document; already in docket for proposal]
EXHIBIT 33.1





REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH SERVICING CRITERIA


FOR ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES





Entergy Arkansas, Inc. (the “Servicer”), as a party participating in the servicing function under Item 1122 of Regulation AB, hereby reports on its assessment of compliance with the servicing criteria specified in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB, as follows:





(1) The Servicer is responsible for assessing compliance with the servicing criteria applicable to it. The servicing criteria specified in the following paragraphs of paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB are not applicable to the Servicer based on the activities it performs with respect to asset-backed securities transactions taken as a whole involving the Servicer and that are backed by the same asset type backing the Senior Secured Storm Recovery Bonds: (1)(ii) (outsourcing), (1)(iii) (back-up servicing), (1)(iv) (fidelity bond), 2(iii) (advances or guarantees), (2)(vi) (unissued checks), (4)(iii) (additions, removals or substitutions), (4)(v) (records regarding pool assets), (4)(ix) (adjustments to interest rates), (4)(x) (funds held in trust for an obligor), (4)(xi) (payments on behalf of obligors), (4)(xii) (late payment penalties), (4)(xiii) (obligor disbursements), and (4)(xv) (external credit enhancement);





(2) The Servicer used the criteria in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB to assess compliance with the applicable servicing criteria;





(3) The Servicer has determined that it is in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ending December 31, 2017, which is the period covered by this report on Form 10-K; and





(4) Deloitte & Touche LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report on the Servicer's assessment of compliance with the applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2017, which is the period covered by this report on Form 10-K.








Dated: March 22, 2018





Entergy Arkansas, Inc., as servicer





By:  /s/ Steven C. McNeal


Name:  Steven C. McNeal


Title:   Vice President and Treasurer
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADDED BY

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Coast Financial Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Brian F. Grimes, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as added by § 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered
by the Report.
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |  |  |     |  |                                                      
|------------------ |  |  |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------
|                   |  |  | 
|Date: May 10, 2007 |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/ Brian F. Grimes                                  
|                   |  |  |  |     |  | Brian F. Grimes, President andChief Executive Officer
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Hines Real Estate Investment
Trust, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 evaluation; andc.
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of the 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
control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb.
    
    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: August 14, 2006
    
    /s/ Charles M. BaughnCharles M. BaughnChief Executive Officer
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002

The undersigned, Harold C.F. Dickout, President, Chief
Executive Officer, Chairman and Director (Principal Executive Officer, Acting
Principal Financial Officer and Acting Principal Accounting Officer) of Americas
Wind Energy Corporation, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB
of Americas Wind Energy Corporation for the nine month period ended April 30,
2007 (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 the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Americas Wind Energy Corporation.

Date: June 14, 2007

/s/ Harold C.F. DickoutHarold C.F.
DickoutPresident, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman and
Director(Principal Executive Officer, Acting Principal Financial Officer
and Acting Principal Accounting Officer)

---