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


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUL-04-1998
<CASH>                                         2,100
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  122,089
<ALLOWANCES>                                   4,106
<INVENTORY>                                    261,982
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               409,931
<PP&E>                                         350,597
<DEPRECIATION>                                 213,614
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 605,664
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          56,875
<BONDS>                                        360,222
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    8,031
<COMMON>                                       29,885
<OTHER-SE>                                     135,660
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   605,664
<SALES>                                        233,184
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               233,184
<CGS>                                          179,673
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  189,885
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               60,894
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               786
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             15,041
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (33,422)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   13,035
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (20,387)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (20,387)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.69)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.69)
        

</TABLE>
No. 47553.

#### Protest 923027-G/87082 of Oscar Leistner, Inc. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Minami*v. *United States*(1 Cust. Ct. 307, C. D. 72) the wreaths in question were held dutiable at 35 percent under paragraph 353 as articles having as an essential feature an electrical element or device, such as signs. The protest was therefore sustained as to that claim.
Amendment to the 2007 Ozone Plan to 

Extend the Rule Adoption Schedule for 

Organic Waste Operations 

Clean Copy 

REVISED TABLE 6-1,2007 OZONE PLAN 

Amendment to the 2007 Ozone Plan to 

Extend the Rule Adoption Schedule for 

Organic Waste Operations 
Sun Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District December 18,2008 

For the purposes of implementing this Extreme OADP, the District is committed to adopt and implement control measures that will achieve, in aggregate, the 

emissions reductions specified in Table 6-1. 

Chapter 6: District Regulatory Control Measures for Stationary Sources 

2007 Ozone Plan
| (logo) Grant Thornton |
|-----------------------|
|                  | **Grant Thornton LLP**

201 S College Street, 

Suite 2500

Charlotte, NC 28244-0100

 

T 704.632.3500

F 704.334.7701

www.GrantThornton.com |

 

 

**REPORT OF INDEPENDENTREGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

 

Board of Directors

Trimont Real Estate Advisors,LLC:

 

We have examinedmanagement’s assertion, included in the accompanying Management’sCertification Regarding Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria(“Management’s Report”), that **Trimont Real EstateAdvisors, LLC** (the “Company” or “Trimont”) compliedwith the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the Company’s SpecialServicing Platform (the “Platform”) as of and for the year endedDecember 31, 2016, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii) and 1122(d)(4)(xv) whichmanagement has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by theCompany with respect to the Platform. The Platform consists of asset-backedtransactions and securities for which the Company acted as special servicer andas defined by management in Exhibit B of Management’s Report. Managementis responsible for the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’sassertion about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria for the Platform based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conductedin accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting OversightBoard (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis,evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria for the Platform and performing such other procedures as we considerednecessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing selectedasset-backed transactions and securities constituting the Platform andevaluating whether the Company performed servicing activities related to thosetransactions and securities in compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria for the period covered by this report. Accordingly, our testing maynot have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transactionor security constituting the Platform. Further, our examination was notdesigned to detect material noncompliance that may have occurred prior to theperiod covered by this report and that may have affected the Company’sservicing activities during the period covered by this report. We believe thatour examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examinationdoes not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance withthe applicable servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion,management’s assertion that Trimont Real Estate Advisors, LLC compliedwith the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the yearended December 31, 2016 for the Special Servicing Platform is fairly stated, inall material respects.

 

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

 

Charlotte, North Carolina 

February 24, 2017

 

 

**Grant Thornton LLP**

U.S. member firm of GrantThornton International Ltd
**Avis juridique important**

*|*

# 31995D0141

**95/141/EC: Commission Decision of 10 April 1995 approving the plan for the approval of establishments for the purposes of intra-Community trade in poultry and hatching eggs submitted by Sweden (Text with EEA relevance)***Official Journal L 092 , 25/04/1995 P. 0025 - 0025*

COMMISSION  DECISION of 10 April 1995 approving the plan for the approval of establishments for the purposes of  intra-Community trade in poultry and hatching eggs submitted by Sweden (Only the Swedish text is  authentic) (Text with EEA relevance) (95/141/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES,

 Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

 Having regard to Council Directive 90/539/EEC of 15 October 1990, on animal health conditions  governing intra-Community trade in, and imports from third countries of, poultry and hatching eggs   (1), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, and in particular  Article 3 (2) thereof,

 Whereas by letter dated 23 February 1995 Sweden transmitted a plan to the Commission;

 Whereas the plan has been examined and found to meet the requirements of Directive 90/539/EEC, and  in particular Annex II thereof;

 Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the  Standing Veterinary Committee,

 HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1 

The plan submitted by Sweden for the approval of establishments for  the purposes of intra-Community trade in poultry and hatching eggs is hereby approved.

Article 2 

Sweden shall bring into force by 1 April 1995 the laws, regulations and administrative  provisions for implementation of the plan referred to in Article 1.

Article 3 

This Decision is addressed to the Kingdom of Sweden.

Done at Brussels, 10 April 1995.

 For the Commission Franz FISCHLER Member of the Commission
# C_2015089EN.01005002.xml

| 16.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 89/50 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 89/50

---

Action brought on 26 January 2015 — ZZ and Others v Commission

(Case F-14/15)

(2015/C 089/63)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: ZZ and Others (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decisions determining the applicants’ rights to reimbursement of annual travel expenses pursuant to Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations of Officials, as amended by Regulation No 1023/2013 of the Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013 amending the Staff Regulations of Officials and the CEOS.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Declare Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations unlawful and inapplicable; |
| --- | --- |

—

Declare Article 8 of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations unlawful and inapplicable;

| — | annul the decisions determining the amount of the reimbursement of annual travel expenses granted to the applicants for 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decisions determining the amount of the reimbursement of annual travel expenses granted to the applicants for 2014;

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

—

order the Commission to pay the costs.

---
April 13, 1950

No. 54245.

Suit 4629.

#### S. Nathan & Co., Inc. *v.*United States.

C. D. 1171 reversed February 2, 1950. C. A. D. 426.
Exhibit 32

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

         I, Gordon R. Arnold,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as
adopted  pursuant to Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that the
quarterly report of Sierra Monitor  Corporation on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and that information  contained
in such  quarterly  report  on Form  10-QSB  fairly  presents,  in all  material
respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations of Sierra  Monitor
Corporation.

Date:   August 11, 2004                     By:  /s/ Gordon R. Arnold
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Gordon R. Arnold
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                                 Chief Financial Officer



                                                                   Page 16 of 16
Exhibit
4.35


 


Property
Lease Agreement


 


Lessor
(Party A): Jiangsu Longrich Bioscience Co., Ltd


 


Lessee
(Party B): Shanghai Juhao Information Technology Co., Ltd


 


On
the basis of voluntariness and equality, Party A and Party B have reached the following agreement on property leasing through consultation:


 


		1.	Location,
area, structure, decoration and facilities of the property: Located in Chuangke phase II, Longliqi Industrial Park, Changshu, Jiangsu
Province, covering an area of 1097 square meters. The address is: 38 Xinzhuang Avenue, Changnan Village, Xinzhuang County, Changshu City
, Jiangsu Province.



 


		2.	Lease
                                            purpose: For Party B’s daily office use.



 


		3.	Lease
                                            term: From January 1, 2022 to December 31, 2022



 


		4.	Rent
                                            and payment method: The rent is RMB 503,128 per year.



 


		5.	Property
                                            maintenance responsibility: Party B shall not change the property structure during the use.



 


		6.	Agreement
                                            on sublease: During the lease term, if Party A transfers the ownership of the leased property
                                            to a third party, it is not necessary to seek the consent of the lessee, but it shall inform
                                            the lessee of the transfer of ownership. If Party B transfers the lease to a third party
                                            due to work needs, it must obtain the consent of the lessor in advance.



 


		7.	Modification
                                            and termination of contract:



 


If
one party fails to perform the contract for more than 10 days, non-breaching party has the right to terminate the contract unilaterally.


 


		8.	Rights
                                            and obligations of Party A and Party B



 


		8.1	Rights
and obligations of Party A:



 


Party
A shall ensure the completion of the property infrastructure and shall not sublet the property without the permission of Party B.


 


		8.2	Rights
and obligations of Party B:



 


		i.	Party
B shall pay the rent on time and have the obligation to maintain and repair the property during the lease period.



 


		ii.	During
                                            the lease period of the property, all expenses incurred by Party B due to its production
                                            and operation shall be borne by Party B itself.



 


		9.	This
Agreement shall come into force from the date of signing. In case of any dispute, both parties shall settle it through negotiation. If
the negotiation fails, the dispute shall be submitted to Changshu people's court for judgment.



 


		10.	This
agreement is made in duplicate, one for each party.






 


	Party A:	Party B:
	Legal Person:	Legal Person:
	 	 
	Signed at:Changshu,
    Jiangsu	Signing date:
EX-31Rule 13a-14(d)/15d-14(d) Certifications.

 

 

I,Anthony Sfarra, certify that:

 

1. Ihave reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required tobe filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of theWells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Trust 2016-C33 (the "Exchange Act periodicreports");

 

2.Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, donot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3. Basedon my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other informationrequired to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this reportis included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in thisreport under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in theExchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligationsunder the servicing agreements in all material respects; and

 

5. Allof the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria forasset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment ofcompliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to beincluded in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB andExchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to thisreport, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances ofnoncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report onForm 10-K.

 

Ingiving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on informationprovided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:

 

NationalCooperative Bank, N.A., as NCB Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, asSpecial Servicer, National Cooperative Bank, N.A., as NCB Special Servicer,Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee, Park Bridge Lender ServicesLLC, as Operating Advisor, CoreLogic Solutions, LLC, as Servicing FunctionParticipant, Computershare Trust Company, National Association, as ServicingFunction Participant for the Certificate Administrator, Computershare TrustCompany, National Association, as Servicing Function Participant for theCustodian, Trimont LLC (f/k/a Trimont Real Estate Advisors, LLC), as SpecialServicer for the 225 Liberty Street Mortgage Loan, Wilmington Trust, NationalAssociation, as Trustee for the 225 Liberty Street Mortgage Loan, Citibank,N.A., as Custodian for the 225 Liberty Street Mortgage Loan, CoreLogic Solutions,LLC, as Servicing Function Participant for the 225 Liberty Street MortgageLoan, and U.S. Bank National Association, as Servicing Function Participant forthe 225 Liberty Street Mortgage Loan.

 

 

 

Dated: March 18, 2024

 

 

/s/Anthony Sfarra

AnthonySfarra 

President

(seniorofficer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
# C_2021452EN.01001801.xml

| 8.11.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 452/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 452/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 15 September 2021 — ADR Center v Commission

(Case T-364/15) (1)

(Financial aid - General Programme ‘Fundamental Rights and Justice’ for the period 2007-2013 - Specific Programme ‘Civil Justice’ - Action for annulment - Enforceable decision - Grant agreements - Recovery of part of the financial contribution paid - Action for a declaratory judgment - Arbitration clause - Force majeure - Eligible costs - Proportionality - Obligation to state reasons)

(2021/C 452/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: ADR Center Srl (Rome, Italy) (represented by: A. Guillerme and T. Bontinck, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: J. Estrada de Solà and M. Ilkova, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application seeking, first, annulment, under Article 263 TFEU, of Commission Decision C(2015) 3117 final of 4 May 2015 relating to the recovery of part of the financial contribution paid to the applicant pursuant to two grant agreements concluded under the Specific Programme ‘Civil Justice’ and, second, a declaration that the costs which the Commission declared ineligible in that decision are eligible.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders ADR Center Srl to pay the costs in the main proceedings and in the proceedings for interim measures. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders ADR Center Srl to pay the costs in the main proceedings and in the proceedings for interim measures.

---

(1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.

---
US Department of Transportation '1200 New Jersey

Avenue SE Washington

DC 20590

Joint Application

of: ALLNIPPON

AIRWAYS

CO., LTD. CONTINENTAL

AlRL|NES,

lNC. and UNITED

AIR LlNE5,

lNC. under 49 U.S.C.

55 41308

and 41309

for approval

and antitrust

immunity

for alliance

agreements Docket DOT-OST-2009-0350

CONFIDENTIALITY

AFFIDAVIT

FOR HUBERT

HORAN

l, Hubert

Horan, declare as follows;

1. I am an interested

party to this case

and I need

to examine

information

made available

by parties

to this proceeding

that may be considered confidential

under 14CFR

302.12. I also qualify asan expert witness,

havingworked in the airline industry {or nearly

thirty years,

with direct experience with the U5- Japanmarket and most of the issues raised by this case. 2. I will use

the con{idential

informatlon

in this proceeding

onlyfor the purpose

of participating

in this proceeding. 3. lwill disclose

such information

only to other persons

who have

filed a confidentiality affidavit

in Docket DOT-O5T-2009-0350. 4. Pursuant

to 28 U.S-C.

S 1746, I declare

underpenalty

of perjury

that the foregoing

is true and correct.



### 16 February 2010

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A copy of the foregoing

was served on 16 February

2010. upon the following

persons via email:

ca rl. n elso n @aa.com jeffrey.ogar@aa.com cjsimpson@zsrlaw.com dmendersbee@zsrlaw.com mlbenge@zsrlaw.com rbkeiner@crowell.com gmu rphy@crowell.com lhalloway@crowel

l.com mrosia@crowell.com thomas.boll

ing@coai r.com hkamen@coair.com bruce.rabinovitz@wilmerha le.com david.hef{ernan@wilmerhale.com jeffrey.manley@united.com ju lie.oettinger@united.com benjamin.slocum@usairways.com howard_kass@usairways.com donna.kooperstein@usdoj. gov jil l.ptacek@usdoj.gov mike.orr@airl

ineinfo.com byerlyjr@state.gov recoh n@h hlaw.com sacha.vanderbellen@delta.com jeff.morgan@delta.com jhill@dowlohnes.com nssparks@fedex.com anbird@fedex.com Kevi n.montgomery@polarai rcargo.com rsi lverberg@sgbdc.com dvaug hn@kelleydrye.com esauer@ssd.com todd.homan@dot.gov peter.irvine@dot.gov wkaras@steptoe.com cAosain@steptoe.com recohn@hhlaw.com



# a--

u bert Horan



### 16 February 2010
# C_2015279EN.01001901.xml

| 24.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/19

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Hannover (Germany) lodged on 1 June 2015 — Michael Ihden, Gisela Brinkmann v TUIfly GmbH

(Case C-257/15)

(2015/C 279/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Hannover

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Michael Ihden, Gisela Brinkmann

Defendant: TUIfly GmbH

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) be interpreted as meaning that extraordinary circumstances which arise during a preceding flight continue to constitute extraordinary circumstances in relation to the flight at issue in the case where the airline operator has the possibility to avoid delay in the remaining flights of the flight sequence by not carrying out certain flights within that flight sequence? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) be interpreted as meaning that extraordinary circumstances which arise during a preceding flight continue to constitute extraordinary circumstances in relation to the flight at issue in the case where the airline operator has the possibility to avoid delay in the remaining flights of the flight sequence by not carrying out certain flights within that flight sequence?

| 2. | If the Court’s answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Must the extraordinary circumstances have arisen on the same day, the previous day or, more generally, only within the scheduled flight sequence? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the Court’s answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Must the extraordinary circumstances have arisen on the same day, the previous day or, more generally, only within the scheduled flight sequence?

---

(1)  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 (Text with EEA relevance) — Commission Statement (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---