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

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE TJ
INTERNATIONAL, INC. BALANCE SHEET AT JUNE 28, 1997 AND FROM ITS STATEMENT OF
INCOME FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 28, 1997.  THE INFORMATION PRESENTED IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-29-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-28-1997
<CASH>                                          70,875
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   82,026
<ALLOWANCES>                                       403
<INVENTORY>                                     51,649
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               215,687
<PP&E>                                         580,174
<DEPRECIATION>                                 202,711
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 636,846
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           79,948
<BONDS>                                         99,790
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     13,650
<COMMON>                                        17,707
<OTHER-SE>                                     195,362
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   636,846
<SALES>                                        346,993
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               346,993
<CGS>                                          252,521
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  252,521
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                53,623
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,113
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 20,749
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,781
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,968
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,968
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .67
        

</TABLE>
(Recap. Dec. 8833)

#### National Carloading Corporation *v.*United States

Entry No. 745492.

(Decided June 13, 1957)

Plaintiff not represented by counsel.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Lawrence, Judge:

When the above-enumerated appeal for a re-appraisement was called for hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of plaintiff and the case was ordered submitted by the court.

Rule 5 (a) of the Tules of the court provides that—

> The submission for decision of any case shall be made in open court by the parties thereto or their attorneys, or by stipulation, or by written request to the court, or by the court on its own motion. Where the plaintiff, petitioner, or appellant, or his attorney, in a case does not appear when the same is called, and after the opposite party has had opportunity to present evidence on the issues, it may be deemed submitted and may be decided by the court on the record as it appears therein.

Accordingly, I have examined the record in the appeal before the court and find nothing therein which tends in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness which attaches to the decision of the appraiser. I find and hold, therefore, that the proper value of the merchandise is the value returned by the appraiser.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is hereby made to that
certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of December 1, 2016, by and among DEUTSCHE MORTGAGE & ASSET RECEIVING CORPORATION,
as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Special Servicer, WILMINGTON
TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent and
Custodian, and PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as Operating Advisor and Asset Representations Reviewer with respect to Commercial
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-CD2 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined
shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 10.11 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, 2017 through
December 31, 2017 (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 2018.



Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President 
Wells Fargo Bank
(Reap. Dec. 9754)

#### Marshall Field & Company *v.*United States

Entry No. 11020, etc.

*445(Decided July 26, 1960)

*Wallace é Schwarts (Joseph Schwarts*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*George Oochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General *(Sheila N. Ziff,*trial attorney) , for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

The difference between the entered and appraised values in the case of the merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement, enumerated in the attached schedule, appears to be an item of 10 per centum, denominated on the invoices as a “buying commission,” which was deducted on entry by the importer and added, back on appraisement by the appraiser.

When the cases were called for trial, counsel for the parties stipulated in open court—

> * * * that at the time of exportation of the merchandise covered by the invoices in question, the export value as defined in section 402(d), Tariff Act of 1930, was the invoiced unit prices, less 2%, plus packing, as invoiced. * * * And that there was no higher foreign value, as defined in said Act. * * * And, also, that the issues are similar in all material respects to those in the ease of United States vs. Nelson Bead, 42 CCPA, 175, CAD 590.

The record in the cited case was incorporated as part of the record in the case at bar.

On the agreed facts, I find export value, as defined in section 402(d), Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the jewelry items at bar, and that such value in each case was the invoiced unit prices, less 2 per centum, plus packing, as invoiced.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
# C_2016419EN.01001601.xml

| 14.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 419/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 419/16

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 22 September 2016 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Germany) — Breitsamer und Ulrich GmbH & Co. KG v Landeshauptstadt München

(Case C-113/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 2000/13/EC - Labelling and presentation of foodstuffs - Article 1(3)(b) - Concept of ‘pre-packaged foodstuff’ - Article 2 - Consumer information and protection - Article 3(1)(8) - Place of origin or provenance of a foodstuff - Article 13(1) - Labelling of a prepackaged foodstuff - Article 13(4) - Packaging or containers the largest surface of which has an area of less than 10 cm2 - Directive 2001/110/EC - Article 2(4) - Indication of the country or countries of origin of honey - Individual portions of honey packaged in cartons supplied to mass caterers - Individual portions sold separately or supplied to ultimate consumers as part of meals for an all-inclusive price - Indication of the country or countries of origin of that honey))

(2016/C 419/19)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Bayerischer Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Breitsamer und Ulrich GmbH & Co. KG

Applicant:

Defendant: Landeshauptstadt München

Defendant:

Intervening party: Landesanwaltschaft Bayern

Intervening party:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 1(3)(b) of Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs must be interpreted as meaning that each of the individual portions of honey presented in the form of portion-cups closed by an aluminium seal and packed in cartons supplied to mass caterers constitutes a ‘pre-packaged foodstuff’ where the mass caterers sell those portions separately or offer them for sale to the ultimate consumer as part of pre-prepared meals for an all-inclusive price.

---

(1)  OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.

1

---
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Edward Bernard Davenport v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-14-00276-CR

Trial court case number: 1393017

Trial court: 351st District Court of Harris County

Appellant’s counsel’s filed a motion to withdraw and brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396 (1967), but did not state that he sent the record 

to appellant. Pursuant to Kelly v. State, No. PD-0702-13, 2014 WL 2865901, at *4 (Tex.

Crim. App. June 25, 2014), we order the Clerk of this Court to mail the Clerk’s Record

and the Reporter’s Record in this appeal to appellant.

Further, we order the appellant to file his response to the Anders brief, if any,

within 30 days of the date of this order. Appellant is further notified that if he fails to 

submit such a response within 30 days of this order, the Court will decide the motion to 

withdraw without an Anders response.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

  

Date: August 26, 2014
No. 41973.

#### Protests 278590-G, etc., of R. H. Macy & Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of puff boxes, buffers, atomizers, and perfume bottles chiefly used in the household for utilitarian purposes. The claim at 40 percent under paragraph 339 was therefore sustained.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v ANTHONY A. ROMERO, Lance Corporal, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

18 USCMA 578, 40 CMR 290

No. 22,073

September 19, 1969

*Lieutenant Allen D. Black,*JAGC, USNR, was on the pleadings for Appellant, Accused.

*Lieutenant Charles J. Keever,*USMC, was on the pleadings for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Darden, Judge:

The accused pleaded guilty and was found guilty of larceny, in violation of Article 121, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 921. The providence of his plea is now under attack.

The procedure followed by the president of this special court-martial would not meet the standard that must apply to cases tried thirty days after the decision in United States v Care, 18 USCMA 535, 40 CMR 247. His inquiry, however, is comparable to that found in *Care.*The president determined that defense counsel had explained each element of the offense charged to the accused but nowhere did he itemize for the accused each element. Considering the inquiry made and the crime charged, we are satisfied that Romero’s plea is knowing and provident.

The decision of the board of review is, therefore, affirmed.

Chief Judge Quinn concurs.

Ferguson, Judge

(dissenting):

I dissent.

For the reasons set forth in my separate opinion in United States v Care, 18 USCMA 535, 40 CMR 247, I would reverse the decision of the board of review and order a rehearing.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-18-00950-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L.J.G., G.J.G., Z.I.G., A.A.G., and L.G.-R.F.

From the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016PA00461

Honorable Laura Salinas, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE CHAPA, JUSTICE RIOS, AND JUSTICE WATKINS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED.

We ORDER no costs assessed against appellant.

SIGNED April 10, 2019.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
FLUOROCHEMICALS LABORATORY

DUPONT COMPANY

TECHNICAL REPORT

DATE: 3/10/11

REPORT NO: [ KSS-9439 ]

COMPANY: E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company Inc.

SUBJECT: Flammability testing of HFO-1336mzz-Z fol lowing ASTM E-681-04 using the ASHRAE standard 12 litre flask

WORK DONE BY: [ Hugh Mentz ]

REPORT WRITTEN BY: [ Hugh Mentz ]

COMPOUND TESTED: cis 1,1,1,4,4,4 hexafluoro-2-bute ne also designated HFO-1336mzz-Z; FEA-1100 (foam expansion agent).

BACKGROUND: HFO-1336mzz-Z is a new, “next-generati on” liquid-product proposed for use

in various enduse segments as a low-global-warming replacement for fluorochemicals like HCFC-141b, HFC-245fa, [ HFC-43-10mee ]

. HFO-1336mzz-Z was tested by method ASTM E681-04 to determine if its vapors are flammable. This test uses an electrical ignition source and flammability is judged by visual observations for f lame propagation.

OBJECTIVE: Determine the flammability characteris tics of HFO-1336mzz-Z over a moderate

range of temperature, and 50% humidity using the AS TM E-681-04 test protocol

and modifications.

RESULTS: At the 60 ° C test temperature, HFO-1336mzz-Z showed no flame a ctivity other than at the electrode tips during the entire tes t. At 100 ° C, HFO-1336mzz-Z did show very slight flame activity at 8% and 10% in air but returned to electrode tips beyond that.

CONCLUSIONS: HFO-1336mzz-Z is non-flammable at bot h 60 ° C and 100 ° C at atmospheric pressure and 50 % relative humidity based on ASTM E681-04 tests using the

ASHRAE standard 12 litre flash.

--------------------------------------------- End o f Summary Report ----------------------------------

------
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44145

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ALVARO OSEGUERA,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 410

Filed: March 21, 2017

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Bonneville County. Hon. Bruce L. Pickett, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty-five years, with a 

minimum period of confinement of ten years, for second degree 

kidnapping, affirmed. 

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; MELANSON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM 

Alvaro Oseguera pled guilty to second degree kidnapping. I.C. §§ 18-4501, 18-4503, and 

18-204. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court 

sentenced Oseguera to a unified term of twenty-five years, with a minimum period of 

confinement of ten years. Oseguera filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied. 

Oseguera appeals.
2

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-

15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Oseguera’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
### The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States Distric t 1 

### Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. ___________ No. 95-2924

___________ John Lee Ivy, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri. United States of America, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: April 3, 1996 Filed: April 12, 1996

___________ Before FAGG, BOWMAN, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
JohnLe e Ivy appeals the District Court's denial of his 28 U.S.C
. 1 § 2255 motion, in which he argued that his crimi nal conviction constituted double jeopardy becau se of a previous civil forfeiture. We affirm as the moti on, files, and records conclusively show Ivy was not entitled t o relief. See United S tates v. Duke , 50 F.3d 571, 576 (8th Cir.) (standard of review), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 224 (1995); United States v. Sykes , 73 F.3d 772, 773-74 (8th Cir. 1996) (defendant who did not contest civil for feiture was not party to forfeiture proceeding and therefore was no t placed in prior jeopardy); United States v. Clementi , 70 F.3d 997, 999-100 0 & n.4 (8th Cir. 1995).

### -2- A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 191 (Friday, October 2, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 59775]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24908]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9023-2]

Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General 
Information (202) 564-7146 or http://www2.epa.gov/nepa

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EISs)
Filed 09/14/2015 Through 09/18/2015
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public 
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment 
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20150275, Final, USA, VA, Fort Belvoir Short-Term Projects and 
Real Property Master Plan Update, Review Period Ends: 11/02/2015, 
Contact: Felix M. Mariani 703-806-3193
EIS No. 20150276, Final Supplement, NRCS, MS, Long Beach Watershed, 
Review Period Ends: 11/09/2015, Contact: Kurt Readus 601-965-5205
EIS No. 20150277, Draft, USFS, WA, LeClerc Creek Grazing Allotment 
Management Planning, Comment Period Ends: 11/16/2015, Contact: Gayne 
Sears 509-447-7300
EIS No. 20150278, Second Draft, USACE, GA, Update of the Water Control 
Manual for the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin in Alabama, 
Florida, and Georgia and Water Supply Storage Assessment, Comment 
Period Ends: 11/16/2015, Contact: Lewis C. Sumner 251-694-3857
EIS No. 20150279, Draft, FTA, CA, Geary Corridor Bus Rapid Transit 
Project, Comment Period Ends: 11/16/2015, Contact: Alex Smith 415-744-
2599
EIS No. 20150280, Final, FTA, WA, Link Light Rail Operations and 
Maintenance Facility, Review Period Ends: 11/02/2015, Contact: James 
Saxton 206-220-7954
EIS No. 20150281, Final, USN, WA, Northwest Training and Testing, 
Review Period Ends: 11/02/2015, Contact: John Mosher 360-257-3234
EIS No. 20150282, Final, USACE, CA, Los Angeles River Ecosystem 
Restoration, Review Period Ends: 11/02/2015, Contact: Eileen Takata 
213-300-5712

    Dated: September 28, 2015.
Karin Leff,
Acting Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal 
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2015-24908 Filed 10-1-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 618 

Designating November 26, 2006, as ‘‘Drive Safer Sunday’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 16, 2006 

Mr. CHAMBLISS (for himself and Mr. ISAKSON) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating November 26, 2006, as ‘‘Drive Safer Sunday’’. 

Whereas motor vehicle travel is the primary means of transportation in the United States; 

Whereas everyone on the roads and highways needs to drive 

more safely to reduce deaths and injuries resulting from 

motor vehicle accidents; 

Whereas the death of almost 43,000 people a year in more 

than 6 million highway crashes in the United States has 

been called an epidemic by Transportation Secretary 

Norman Mineta; 

Whereas according to the National Highway Transportation 

Safety Administration, wearing a seat belt saved 15,434 

lives in 2004 and 15,632 lives in 2005; and 

Whereas the Sunday after Thanksgiving is the busiest highway traffic day of the year: Now, therefore, be it 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 618 ATS 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) encourages— 

3 (A) high schools, colleges, universities, ad4 ministrators, teachers, primary schools, and 

5 secondary schools to launch campus-wide edu6 cational campaigns to urge students to be care7 ful about safety when driving; 

8 (B) national trucking firms to alert their 

9 drivers to be especially focused on driving safely 

10 during the heaviest traffic day of the year, and 

11 to publicize the importance of the day using 

12 Citizen’s band (CB) radios and in truck stops 

13 across the Nation; 

14 (C) clergy to remind their members to 

15 travel safely when attending services and gath16 erings; 

17 (D) law enforcement personnel to remind 

18 drivers and passengers to drive particularly 

19 safely on the Sunday after Thanksgiving; and 

20 (E) everyone to use the Sunday after 

21 Thanksgiving as an opportunity to educate 

22 themselves about highway safety; and 

23 (2) designates November 26, 2006, as ‘‘Drive 

24 Safer Sunday’’. 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
California High-Speed Rail Authority 

Fresno to Bakersfield 

Section 

Draft Supplemental 

Environmental Impact 

Report/Environmental 

Impact Statement 

Appendix 3.11-B 

Airport Obstructions 

November 2017 
Appendix 3.11-B 

Airport Obstructions 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 

This page intentionally left blank 
Appendix 3.11-B 

Airport Obstructions 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 3.11-B-1 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 

APPENDIX 3.11-B: AIRPORT OBSTRUCTIONS 

A number of technical appendices included as part of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final 

Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) have not been 

recreated for the purposes of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS because the information contained 

within the technical appendix would remain applicable to the F-B LGA. Appendix 3.11-B did not 

require an update for the F-B LGA analysis and therefore is not included in Volume II of the 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS. To review the appendix in its entirety, 

please refer to the Authority’s Final EIR/EIS: Fresno to Bakersfield website. 
Appendix 3.11-B 

Airport Obstructions 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority 

3.11-B-2 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 

This page intentionally left blank