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

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                             915
<SECURITIES>                                     7,440
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,239
<ALLOWANCES>                                       449
<INVENTORY>                                      4,097
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,017
<PP&E>                                           3,065
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,834
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,710
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,287
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,290
<OTHER-SE>                                       3,613
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    18,710
<SALES>                                          5,721
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,721
<CGS>                                            1,264
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,264
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,115
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (102)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,919)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,919)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (386)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

ERIE INSURANCE EXCHANGE,

Respondent

v.

THOMAS L. SUTHERLAND AND LUCINDA 

S. SUTHERLAND,

Petitioners

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 232 WAL 2021

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of April, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>  5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM 
UNITED AIR LINES, INC.'S STATEMENT OF CONSOLIDATED OPERATIONS FOR THE 
SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1998 AND CONDENSED STATEMENT OF CONSOLIDATED 
FINANCIAL POSITION AS OF JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000,000
       
<S>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                     DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                        JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                               6-MOS
<CASH>                                                        551
<SECURITIES>                                                  416
<RECEIVABLES>                                               1,372
<ALLOWANCES>                                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                                   425
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                            3,352
<PP&E>                                                     17,890
<DEPRECIATION>                                              5,781
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             18,586
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       5,912
<BONDS>                                                     4,622
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                           0
<PREFERRED>                                                     0
<COMMON>                                                        0
<OTHER-SE>                                                  3,358
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               18,586
<SALES>                                                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                            8,475
<CGS>                                                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                               7,897
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                            176
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               509
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  174
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           335  
<DISCONTINUED>                                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                 0
<CHANGES>                                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                                  335
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                   0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                   0
                                                                

</TABLE>
# C_2016410EN.01001701.xml

| 7.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 410/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 410/17

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2016 — Satkirit Holdings v EUIPO — Advanced Mailing Solutions (luvoworld)

(Case T-450/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark luvoworld - Earlier EU work mark luvo - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the goods and services - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 410/22)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Satkirit Holdings Ltd (Douglas, Isle of Man) (represented by: M. Vanhegan, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Sliwinska and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Advanced Mailing Solutions Ltd (East Kilbride, United Kingdom)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 21 May 2015 (Case R 1480/2014-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Advanced Mailing Solutions and Satkirit Holdings.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Satkirit Holdings Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Satkirit Holdings Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.

1

---
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 4, 2016 through December 31, 2016, 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, 2017
|                                     |  | Connie Coffey                           |  |  |  |                      
|                                     |  | Executive Vice President, Corporate     |  |  |  |                      
|                                     |  | Controller and Chief Accounting Officer |  |  |  |
# C_2006290EN.01000101.xml

| 29.11.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 290/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.11.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 290/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

28 November 2006

(2006/C 290/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3147 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 152,99 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4545 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,67625 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0683 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5866 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 91,71 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,2810 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5780 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,060 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 258,59 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6978 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,8368 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,4695 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,67 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 35,641 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,9470 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6861 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4863 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,2217 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9525 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0385 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 223,79 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,4510 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,3072 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3435 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 076,18 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7855 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 65,623 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 34,6370 |
| THB | Thai baht | 47,772 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3147

JPY

Japanese yen

152,99

DKK

Danish krone

7,4545

GBP

Pound sterling

0,67625

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0683

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5866

ISK

Iceland króna

91,71

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,2810

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5780

CZK

Czech koruna

28,060

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

258,59

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6978

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,8368

RON

Romanian leu

3,4695

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,67

SKK

Slovak koruna

35,641

TRY

Turkish lira

1,9470

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6861

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4863

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,2217

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9525

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0385

KRW

South Korean won

1 223,79

ZAR

South African rand

9,4510

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,3072

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3435

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 076,18

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7855

PHP

Philippine peso

65,623

RUB

Russian rouble

34,6370

THB

Thai baht

47,772

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 14

- 00822

- CR Ricardo RUIZ , Appellant

v. The STATE of The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2012CR0550 Honorable Mary D. Rom á n, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice Karen Angelini, Justice Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice Delivered and Filed: December 17, 2014
DIS MISSED The trial court’s certification in this appeal states that “ this criminal case is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s record contains a written plea bargain, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendan t; therefore, the trial court’s certification accurately reflects that the underlying case is a plea

- bargain case. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 25.2(a)(2). Rule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides, “The appeal must be dismissed if a certi fication that shows the defendant has a right of appeal has not been made part04

- 14

- 00822

- CR

of the record under these rules.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 25.2(d). On December 10, 2014, we ordered that this appeal would be dismissed pursuant to rule 25.2(d) unless an amended tria l court certification showing that the appellant has the right of appeal was made part of the appellate record by January 5, 2014. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 25.2(d); 37.1; see also Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Daniels v. State , 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, no pet.). Appellant’s counsel has filed a written response stating that counsel has reviewed the record and “can find no right of appeal for Appellant.” As a result, counsel states he “can find no
reason to seek an amended certification from the trial court.” See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 25.2(d); 37.1; see also Daniels v. State , 110 S.W.3d 174, 177 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, no pet.). In light of the record presented, we agree with appellant’s counsel that Rule 2 5.2(d) requires this court to dismiss this appeal. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.
PER CURIAM
DO NOT PUBLISH

- 2

-
#### H. W. Robinson *& Co.*et al. *v.*United States

No. 6419.

Entry No. 706776, etc.

Invoices dated Nottingham, England, July 24, 1943, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., August 31, 1943, etc.

(Decided October 4, 1946)

*Strauss & Hedges (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, *for*the defendant.

Tilson, Judge:

Counsel for the respective parties have agreed that the issues involved in the appeals listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, are the same in all material respects as the issues involved in *United States*v. *Pitcairn,*C. A. D. 334, and the record in that case has been admitted in evidence herein.

Accepting this stipulation as a statement of fact, and following the cited authority, I find and hold the proper dutiable export values of the merchandise covered by said appeals to be the values found by the appraiser, less any amounts added by the importers on entry to meet advances made by the appraiser in .similar cases then pending on appeal.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 35.10

 

|        |                                                                                                                                                                                               |        |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |  

C-III ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC d/b/a 

GREYSTONE SPECIAL SERVICING

5221 N. O’Connor Blvd., Suite 800 

Irving, Texas 75039

Phone: 972-868-5300

Fax: 972-868-5303

www.greyco.com |   |

 

OFFICER’S CERTIFICATE

C-III Asset Management LLC

 

 

The undersigned, Barry Davis, President of C-III Asset Management LLC, the current Special Servicer under that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of December 1, 2015, relating to the Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Trust 2015-P2, Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-P2 (the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”), hereby certifies as follows:

 

|   | 1. | a review of the activities of the Special Servicer and of its performance under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement during the calendar year 2019 (the “Reporting Period”) has been made under the undersigned’s supervision; |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

|   | 2. | to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer maintained an effective internal control system relating to its servicing of the Mortgage Loans serviced by it and has fulfilled in all material respects its obligations under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement throughout the Reporting Period. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings given them in the Pooling and Servicing Agreement.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, as of the 1st day of March, 2020, I have hereunto signed my name.

 

 

 

  /s/ Barry Davis

Barry Davis, Vice President
January 7, 1939

No. 40362.

#### Protest 821888-G (C) of Mattia Locatelli New York Branch.

Abstract 40096. Application by plaintiff for rehearing granted.
No. 55459.

#### Railway Express Agency *v.*United States,

protest 167810-K (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 123 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 123

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),

SECTION 1. AUTHORIZATION OF USE OF CAPITOL GROUNDS FOR D.C. SPECIAL 
              OLYMPICS LAW ENFORCEMENT TORCH RUN.

    On June 8, 2007, or on such other date as the Speaker of the House 
of Representatives and the Committee on Rules and Administration of the 
Senate may jointly des-

ignate, the 2007 District of Columbia Special Olympics Law Enforcement 
Torch Run (in this resolution referred to as the ``event'') may be run 
through the Capitol Grounds as part of the journey of the Special 
Olympics torch to the District of Columbia Special Olympics summer 
games.

SEC. 2. RESPONSIBILITY OF CAPITOL POLICE BOARD.

    The Capitol Police Board shall take such actions as may be 
necessary to carry out the event.

SEC. 3. CONDITIONS RELATING TO PHYSICAL PREPARATIONS.

    The Architect of the Capitol may prescribe conditions for physical 
preparations for the event.

SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT OF RESTRICTIONS.

    The Capitol Police Board shall provide for enforcement of the 
restrictions contained in section 5104(c) of title 40, United States 
Code, concerning sales, advertisements, displays, and solicitations on 
the Capitol Grounds, as well as other restrictions applicable to the 
Capitol Grounds, in connection with the event.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 15, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                            H. CON. RES. 123

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the District of Columbia 
              Special Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run.
```
No. 48717.

#### Protests 83239-K, etc., of American President Lines, Ltd. (Honolulu and San Francisco).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

An examination of the entry papers in each case disclosed that the protests were filed more than 60 days after liquidation. The motion to dismiss was therefore granted.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6776

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus ANTOINE LAVAR DIXON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CR-01-19; CA-04-39-7-F) Submitted: October 20, 2005 Decided: October 27, 2005 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antoine Lavar Dixon, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly Ann Moore, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order does not refer to Dixon’s motion as a successive § 2255 motion, such a conclusion can be inferred from the court’s reasoning. - 2 - PER CURIAM: Antoine Lavar Dixon seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b), seeking reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. Because Dixon's motion did not assert a defect in the collateral review process itself, but rather reargued the merits of his § 2255 motion based on new case law, the motion was properly characterized a successive § 2255 motion under our decision in United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir.2003). * To appeal an order denying a Rule 60(b) motion in a § 2255 action, Dixon must establish entitlement to a certificate of appealability. SeeReid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 368-70 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the- 3 - record and conclude that Dixon has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. To the extent that Dixon's notice of appeal and informal brief could be construed as a motion for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, we deny such authorization. See Winestock , 340 F.3d at 208. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED