alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2019139EN.01004201.xml

| 15.4.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 139/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.4.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 139/42

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 March 2019 — Hamas v Council

(Case T-289/15) (1)

(Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism - Freezing of funds - Whether an authority of a third State can be classified as a competent authority within the meaning of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP - Factual basis of the decisions to freeze funds - Obligation to state reasons - Error of assessment - Right to property)

(2019/C 139/39)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Hamas (Doha, Qatar) (represented by: L. Glock, lawyer)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: initially B. Driessen and N. Rouam, and subsequently B. Driessen, F. Naert and A. Sikora-Kalėda, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially F. Castillo de la Torre and R. Tricot, and subsequently F. Castillo de la Torre, L. Baumgart and C. Zadra, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of (i) Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/521 of 26 March 2015 updating and amending the list of persons, groups and entities subject to Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP on the application of specific measures to combat terrorism, and repealing Decision 2014/483/CFSP (OJ 2015 L 82, p. 107), and (ii) Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/513 of 26 March 2015 implementing Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2580/2001 on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism and repealing Implementing Regulation (EU) No 790/2014 (OJ 2015 L 82, p. 1), in so far as those measures concern the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Hamas to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Hamas to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015.

---
No. 45179.

#### Protests 45164-K, etc., of B. Filippone & Co., Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Locatelli*v. *United States*(T. D. 48284 and T. D. 49389) it was held that an allowance should have been made in the weight of the cheese to compensate for the inedible coverings.
FORM 10-Q

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

(Mark One)

[x]	QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004

OR

[ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from ____________ to ___________

Commission file number 0-2666

250 WEST 57th ST. ASSOCIATES L.L.C.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

A New York Limited Liability Company 	13-6083380

(State or other jurisdiction of	(I.R.S. Employer

incorporation or organization)	Identification No.)

60 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10165

(Address of principal executive offices)

(Zip Code)

(212) 687-8700

(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

N/A

(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes [ X ].  No [  ] .

An Exhibit Index is located on Page 14 of this Report.  Number of pages (including exhibits) in this filing:  14 

PART I.  FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1.  Financial Statements.

250 West 57th St. Associates L.L.C.

Condensed Statements of Income

(Unaudited)

	For the Three Months	For the Nine Months

		Ended September 30,	Ended September 30,

	2004	2003	2004	2003

Income:
UGI UTILITIES INC.
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES  EXHIBIT 12.1
(Thousands of dollars)
 SixMonthsEndedMarch 31,
    
    
    Year Ended September 30,2011
    
    
    2010
    
    
    2009
    
    
    2008
    
    
    2007
    
    
    2006Earnings:Earnings before income taxes
    
    $
    161,547
    
    
    $
    147,183
    
    
    $
    125,554
    
    
    $
    123,977
    
    
    $
    122,766
    
    
    $
    80,544Interest expense
    
    
    21,442
    
    
    
    42,336
    
    
    
    43,918
    
    
    
    39,065
    
    
    
    42,327
    
    
    
    24,102Amortization of debt discount and expense
    
    
    622
    
    
    
    627
    
    
    
    625
    
    
    
    467
    
    
    
    462
    
    
    
    243Estimated interest component of rental expense
    
    
    953
    
    
    
    1,912
    
    
    
    1,965
    
    
    
    1,619
    
    
    
    1,506
    
    
    
    1,675$
    184,564
    
    
    $
    192,058
    
    
    $
    172,062
    
    
    $
    165,128
    
    
    $
    167,061
    
    
    $
    106,564Fixed Charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    21,442
    
    
    $
    42,336
    
    
    $
    43,918
    
    
    $
    39,065
    
    
    $
    42,327
    
    
    $
    24,102Amortization of debt discount and expense
    
    
    622
    
    
    
    627
    
    
    
    625
    
    
    
    467
    
    
    
    462
    
    
    
    243Allowance for funds used during
construction (capitalized interest)
    
    
    51
    
    
    
    35
    
    
    
    160
    
    
    
    139
    
    
    
    179
    
    
    
    85Estimated interest component of rental expense
    
    
    953
    
    
    
    1,912
    
    
    
    1,965
    
    
    
    1,619
    
    
    
    1,506
    
    
    
    1,675$
    23,068
    
    
    $
    44,910
    
    
    $
    46,668
    
    
    $
    41,290
    
    
    $
    44,474
    
    
    $
    26,105Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    8.00
    
    
    
    4.28
    
    
    
    3.69
    
    
    
    4.00
    
    
    
    3.76
    
    
    
    4.08
# C_2016048EN.01000701.xml

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/7

---

Appeal brought on 24 April 2015 by Fetim BV against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 11 February 2015 in Case T-395/12: Fetim v OHIM

(Case C-190/15 P)

(2016/C 048/10)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Fetim BV (represented by: L. Bakers, advocaat)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Other party to the proceedings:

By order of 19 November 2015 the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-08-112-CR

JOSEPH MARTINEZ	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

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

	FROM THE 372ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	In two issues, appellant Joseph Martinez contends that his convictions for possession and delivery of the same ten pounds of marijuana are the same for double jeopardy purposes and that the trial judge erred by refusing to include a jury question on possession of marijuana under five pounds.  We reverse the judgment as to the possession charge and acquit appellant on that charge only; however, we affirm the judgment as to the delivery charge.

	The State concedes appellant’s first issue and asks that we delete appellant’s conviction for possession.  Accordingly, we sustain appellant’s first issue.

	In his second issue, appellant contends the trial court erred by failing to include a question on possession of under five pounds.  But because by sustaining appellant’s first issue, we must reverse the conviction for possession, his second issue is now moot and we need not address it.2  See Tex. R. App. P. 47.1; Dixon v. State, 932 S.W.3d 567, 571 (Tex. App.—Tyler 1995, no pet.).

	Having sustained appellant’s first issue and having determined that his second issue is therefore moot, we affirm the trial court’s judgment as to the conviction for delivery of marijuana, but we reverse the trial court’s judgment as to the conviction for possession of marijuana and render a judgment of acquittal as to that offense only.

							TERRIE LIVINGSTON

							JUSTICE

PANEL:  LIVINGSTON, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: December 11, 2008
# C_2015198EN.01002202.xml

| 15.6.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 198/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.6.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 198/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 26 March 2015 — J.H. Dees-Erf, other parties: Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu, Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV

(Case C-146/15)

(2015/C 198/30)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: J.H. Dees-Erf

Applicant:

Other parties: Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu, Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV

Other parties:

Question referred

Question referred

Given that Netherlands law provides access to the civil courts to protect the rights which passengers may derive under EU law from Article 5(1)(c) and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1), does Article 16 of that Regulation oblige the national authorities to take implementing measures which form the basis for administrative enforcement action through the bodies designated under Article 16 separately in each individual case in which Article 5(1)(c) and Article 7 of the Regulation are infringed, in order to be able to guarantee a passenger’s right to compensation separately in each individual case?

---
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

RENE MANTILLA,

Appellant,

v.

RAUL HERNANDEZ FABIAN; MULTICULTURAL COMMUNITY MENTAL 

HEALTH CENTER, INC.; MANUEL SUAREZ; and MANUEL SUAREZ & 

ASSOCIATES, P.A.,

Appellees.

No. 4D18-2429

[November 20, 2019]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Cymonie S. Rowe, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2014-CA010389-XXXX-MB.

Angelo Marino, Jr. and William H. Brennan, III of Angelo Marino, Jr., 

P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Thomas Regnier of Tom Regnier Appeals, P.A., Sunrise, for appellee 

Raul Hernandez Fabian.

PER CURIAM.

Rene Mantilla appeals an order granting summary judgment in favor of 

Raul Hernandez Fabian. Mantilla and Fabian jointly owned a business, 

and Mantilla eventually sold his fifty percent interest to Fabian. Mantilla 

later sued Fabian and other defendants alleging fraud in the inducement 

of the sale documents, among other claims. The trial court granted 

summary judgment based on a release executed at the time of the sale. 

We reverse. 

“[O]ur supreme court has spoken clearly that no contract provision can 

preclude rescission on the basis of fraud in the inducement unless the 

contract provision explicitly states that fraud is not a ground for 

rescission.” Lower Fees, Inc. v. Bankrate, Inc., 74 So. 3d 517, 520 (Fla. 4th 

DCA 2011) (citing Oceanic Villas, Inc. v. Godson, 4 So. 2d 689, 690 (Fla. 

1941)). Because the release at issue does not “specifically and explicitly 

negate[] the right to bring” a fraudulent inducement claim, we reverse and 
2

remand for further proceedings. See id.

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

CIKLIN, GERBER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

 

CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906

OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofUnico American Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2011, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Lester A. Aaron, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

1.      the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

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

 

 

 

/s/ Lester A. Aaron

 

Name:  Lester A. Aaron

Title:    Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer

Date:   May 13, 2011

 

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906,or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronicversion of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Unico American Corporation, and

will be retained by Unico American Corporation, and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Edward Hutchings *versus*Buck. Edward Hutchings, Jr. *versus*Same.

An agreement under seal to -withdraw an action from the court, is not rescind-able by one of the parties alone.

Where, in pursuance of such an agreement, the entry of “ neither party,” has been made on the docket, the suit is discontinued and the jurisdiction of the court over it is at an end.

Though the same agreement also contains a submission of the action, and the referee afterwards dies, before having acted upon the matter, still there is no authority in the court to recall and restore the action to the docket.

These actions were pending in 1849 in this court, and were referred, by a written agreement under seal, to two individuals. *278In the agreement to refer, was a stipulation that the actions in court should be entered “ neither party.” At the next regular term of the court, in July, A. D. 1849, those entries were made.

Before the adjourned term of the same court, in August of same year, William Abbot, Esq., one of the referees, who was in full life when the agreement to refer was entered into, and when said docket entries were made, deceased. For that reason, at said adjourned term, a motion was made to strike off said entries, and to let the actions stand for trial.

The motion was allowed, and the defendant excepted.

*J. Appleton,*for the defendant.

*Kelley,*for the plaintiffs.

The referee died *during the term,*in which the entries of “ neither party” were made. The entries may, therefore, be stricken off. The contract of submission could not be executed. Things then stood as before.

Where parties have substituted another *available*tribunal, instead of the courts of law, the arrangement is not rescind-able. But in this case, Providence, *not the plaintiffs,*has rendered the arrangement unavailable.

It is every day’s practice to take off nonsuits. These entries are of no higher sanctity, than that of a nonsuit.

Courts, for reasons shown, may strike out a reference altogether. The order, restoring the actions, was wholly at the discretion of the presiding Judge ; to such orders, exceptions cannot be alleged. It avoids circuity of action, and operates no injustice, for the defendant loses nothing by it.

Wells, J.,

orally.—Upon examination it appears very clear, that when there has been an agreement under seal to take an action out of court, otherwise than by rule of court, and such an entry has been made, no further jurisdiction can attach to it here. The effect of such an agreement to refer, is a discontinuance of the suits. The authorities cited go to that extent. The actions have been discontinued by the agreement of par*279ties. The entry was rightfully made, and if it had not yet been made, it would have to be made, pursuant to such sealed agreement.
| *United States *        Office of Personnel Management**Labor        Agreement Information Retrieval System (LAIRS)**  |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                             |

The **Labor Agreement Information Retrieval System(LAIRS)** is a searchable databasecontaining current information on labor-management relations and employee relations inthe Federal Government. It includes:

- representational data on all        bargaining units certified by the Federal Labor Relations        Authority (FLRA) in accordance with chapter 71 of title        5, United States Code. 
- text of Federal sector collective        bargaining agreements, and 
- publications by the Office of Personnel Management.

   **Login to LAIRS**   
This information is providedunder the authority of section 7135(b) of title 5, United StatesCode, and Executive Orders 11491, as amended, and12107. These make theOffice of Personnel Management (OPM) responsible for providinginformation about the Federal labor-management relations programto agencies, labor organizations, and the general public.

Direct questions or comments on this page to the Office of Labor and Employee Relations, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Theodore Roosevelt Building, 1900 E Street,NW., Washington, DC 20415-2000, telephone (202) 606-2930; fax(202) 606-2613; or email LAIRS@opm.gov.
- To  Labor-Management Relations Home Page 
- To  National Partnership Council Home Page 
- To  OPM Web Site Index 
- To  OPM        Home Page

*You are visitornumber    since this page was last updated*

***Page updated 30 August 2000***
<TABLE>
UJB FINANCIAL CORP.                                                  Exhibit (99)F
CONSOLIDATED RECONCILIATIONS OF ALLOWANCE FOR LOAN LOSSES
(dollars in thousands)
<CAPTION>

                                                     Nine Months Ended September 30,
                                                     -----------------------------
                                                         1995            1994
                                                     -------------   -------------
<S>                                                      <C>             <C>
Balance, January 1                                       $214,161        $244,154
   Purchase acquisition and other, net                      6,131           1,833
   Provision charged to expense                            48,750          55,500
                                                     -------------   -------------
                                                          269,042         301,487
   Net charge offs:
      Loans charged off                                    83,124          74,458
      Less recoveries                                      14,419          10,716
                                                     -------------   -------------
   Net loans charged off                                   68,705          63,742
                                                     -------------   -------------
Balance, September 30                                    $200,337        $237,745
                                                     =============   =============
</TABLE>
Exhibit 35.1

Servicer Compliance Statement of AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.

This Annual Statement as to Compliance is delivered to you pursuant to Section 2.9 (c) of the 2016-1 Servicing
Supplement dated as of January 4, 2016 (the Agreement) and Item 1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of GM Financial Automobile Leasing Trust 2016-1 (the
Trust), the issuance of the Notes by the Trust and the closing of the transactions and the execution and delivery of the various documents by AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (the Servicer) and GMF Leasing LLC in
connection therewith. The capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meanings as in the Agreement.

The undersigned certifies that
I am the Executive Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of the Servicer. I further certify as follows:



| | 1. | I have conducted, or caused to be conducted under my supervision, a review of the Servicer during the preceding period from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017, and its performance under the Agreement.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, following such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period, and, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no default in the
fulfillment of any such obligation.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.



|    |  |                                         |  |                      
|--- |  | --------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Connie Coffey                       |  | Dated: March 15, 2018
|    |  | Connie Coffey                           |  |                      
|    |  | Executive Vice President, Corporate     |  |                      
|    |  | Controller and Chief Accounting Officer |  |
# C_2016343EN.01000701.xml

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — Apple and Pear Australia Ltd, Star Fruits Diffusion v European Union Intellectual Property Office, Carolus C. BVBA

(Case C-226/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Application for EU word mark English pink - Opposition by the proprietor of the word mark PINK LADY and the figurative marks including the word elements ‘Pink Lady’ - Opposition dismissed - Decision of an EU trade mark court - Alteration - Res judicata))

(2016/C 343/09)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Appellants: Apple and Pear Australia Ltd, Star Fruits Diffusion (represented by: T. de Haan, avocat, and P. Péters, advocaat)

Appellants:

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, Agent), Carolus C. BVBA

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders Apple and Pear Australia Ltd and Star Fruits Diffusion to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Apple and Pear Australia Ltd and Star Fruits Diffusion to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 254, 3.8.2015.

1

---