alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Pike *versus*Lowell.

The limitation in *§*8, of the bankrupt law, applies to actions in the name of an assignee in bankruptcy, though brought wholly for the benefit of a third party.

Assumpsit, brought April 38, 1849. Certain persons were decreed to be bankrupts in 1842. The plaintiff was assignee of their estate. In said capacity he sold to one Bolkcom a demand against Stephenson, since deceased. The demand had been in the hands of Mr. Lowell, and prior to said sale, Mr. Lowell had collected the money ; but he declined to pay it over, except to Stephenson’s administrator, saying the demand never belonged to the bankrupt’s estate.

Bolkcom brings this action, in the name of the assignee, to recover said money. The defendant pleaded the limitation, contained in the 8th section of the Bankrupt Act.

*Walker,*for plaintiff.

In an action, brought by an assignee *to dose up an estate,*two years would constitute a bar. . Not so, when the suit is brought for the use of a *third person.*The two years are a bar, only when the assignee’s interest is adverse to that of the defendant. The object,, of the limitation was to compel an early settlement of the estate. Here the estate is all settled. The limitation being in derogation of the common law should be construed strictly. Bacon’s Abridg. title, Statute, letter I., 4 & *5; Hancock*v. *Minot,*8 Pick. 37.

The analogies to cases of executors sustain our position. 2 Maine, 75 ; 14 Maine, 320 ; 8 Pick. 36.

*Lowell, pro se.*

Tenney, J.,

orally.—The distinction drawn by the plaintiff’s counsel cannot be sustained. There is nothing in the statute, from which it can be inferred. Limitation laws are arbitrary, but they are binding.

*Judgment for defendant.*
**Exhibit
      32.2**











Certification
      of CFO Pursuant to


18
      U.S.C.
      Section 1350,


As
      Adopted Pursuant to


Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002











In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of U.S. Energy Corp. (the "Company") on
      Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on August 11, 2006 (the "Report"), Robert Scott Lorimer,
      Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
      of
      2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)  The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.














/s/
                Robert Scott LorimerRobert
                Scott Lorimer,Chief
                Financial OfficerAugust
                11, 2006








This
      certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
      purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      U.S. Energy Corp. and will be retained by U.S. Energy Corp. and furnished to
      the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2015245EN.01000601.xml

| 27.7.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 245/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.7.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 245/6

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Judecătoria Sibiu (Romania) lodged on 30 April 2015 — Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice (DGRFP) Brașov v Vasile Toma, Biroul Executorului Judecătoresc Horaţiu-Vasile Cruduleci

(Case C-205/15)

(2015/C 245/08)

Language of the case: Romanian

Referring court

Referring court

Judecătoria Sibiu

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Direcția Generală Regională a Finanțelor Publice (DGRFP) Brașov

Applicant:

Defendants: Vasile Toma, Biroul Executorului Judecătoresc Horaţiu-Vasile Cruduleci

Defendants:

Question referred

Question referred

On a proper construction of Article 4(3) TEU and Articles 20, 21 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, do those provisions preclude legislation such as Article 16 of the [Romanian] Constitution and Article 30 of Government Emergency Order No 80/2103, which enshrines the principle of equality before the law only as between citizens as natural persons and not between citizens as natural persons and legal persons governed by public law, and which, a priori, exempts legal persons governed by public law from the requirement to pay stamping fees and to lodge a security in order to gain access to justice, whilst making access to justice by natural persons conditional upon payment of stamping fees/the lodging of a security?

---
Before the First Division,

August 20, 1940

No. 44211.

#### Protests 806154-G, etc., of Dun Hats, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Bbown, ,T.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of bodies, hoods, forms, or shapes similar to that the subject of *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 166, C. D. 314). The protests were sustained accordingly.
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Commercial Mortgage  Servicing**D1050-084, 8th Fl  401 South Tryon Street.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|--------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

  

Reference is hereby made to thatcertain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of March 1, 2016, by and amongWELLS FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGOBANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as General Master Servicer, RIALTO CAPITALADVISORS, LLC as General Special Servicer, NATIONAL COOPERATIVE BANK, N.A., asNCB Master Servicer and as NCB Special Servicer, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONALASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONALASSOCIATION, as Trustee and PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as OperatingAdvisor and as Asset Representations Reviewer, with respect to CommercialMortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2016-C33 (the "Agreement").Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meaningsassigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.09 ofthis Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.           A review of the activities of the General Master Servicer during the periodfrom March 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 (the “ReportingPeriod”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period hasbeen made under my supervision, and 

 

2.           To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the General Master Servicerhas fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all materialrespects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2017.

 

 

/s/Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|------------------------|------------------------------------|
Exhibit 4.2



 


 


Consent of Independent Registered Public
Accounting Firm


We have issued our report
dated April 22, 2022, with respect to the financial statement of Advisors Disciplined Trust 2035 contained in Amendment No. 2 to the Registration
Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-239037) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned report in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Experts”.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


April 22, 2022
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

July 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
130632 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STAT E OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 130632 COA: 267273 Wexford CC: 04-007363-FH ROBERT PETER EARL, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 24, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p0724 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

July 31, 2006

Clerk
(Reap. Dec. 8387)

Entry No. 1242.

#### American Express Company *v.*United States

(Decided February 2, 1955)

*Wallace & Schwartz*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised value of the merchandise involved in the above-entitled case, less the Canadian Sales Tax *444of 3.2% which is included in said appraised value, is equal to the price, at the time of exportation of said merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, and that the foreign value of such or similar merchandise was no higher.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the record in *C. J. Tower & Sons v. United States,*Reappraisement Decision 7624, may be incorporated herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that this case may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value was the appraised value, less the Canadian sales tax of 3.2 per centum.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
# C_2016410EN.01001601.xml

| 7.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 410/16 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 410/16

---

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

(Case T-449/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark luvo - 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 410/21)

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 877/2014-2), 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

---
# C_2019295EN.01003701.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/37

---

Order of the General Court of 27 June 2019 — Vinnolit v Commission

(Case T-743/15) (1)

(State aid - Aid granted by certain provisions of the amended German law on renewable energy sources - Annulment of the act criticised by the Court - Action which has become devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate)

(2019/C 295/47)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Vinnolit GmbH & Co. KG (Ismaning, Germany) (represented by: M. Geipel, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Maxian Rusche and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application on the basis of Article 263 TFEU seeking the annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2015/1585 of 25 November 2014 on the aid scheme SA.33995 (2013/C) (ex 2013/NN) (implemented by Germany for the support of renewable electricity and of energy-intensive users) (OJ 2015 L 250, p. 122).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the case. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate in the case.

| 2. | The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by Vinnolit GmbH & Co. KG. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by Vinnolit GmbH & Co. KG.

---

(1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.

---
| **Miscellaneous Field Studies Map MF-2415** |
|---------------------------------------------|

| **Geologic Map of the Horse Mountain Quadrangle,Garfield County, Colorado** |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| By  William J. Perry, Ralph        R. Shroba, Robert B. Scott, and Florian Maldonado |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  |
|--|

| **Version 1.0** |
|-----------------|

----

| The text of this report is presented here in Portable Document Format. Adobe Acrobat Reader™ (5.0 or higher) or similar software is required to view it. If  you wish to download the latest version of Acrobat Reader free of charge, click here. |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| PDF files for viewing and printing: |
|-------------------------------------|
| MF-2415 Map (4.4 MB)                |

| Pamphlet PDF file (304 KB) | (This version of the report is accessible as defined in Section 508.) |
|----------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Metadata file:             |
|----------------------------|
| Metadata text file (24 KB) |

| Download GIS and base files:                                                                                                                                                                                  |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| ZIPPED archive of ArcInfo files and metadata (1.9		      MB)

ZIPPED archive of georeferenced 		      topographic base map (1.6 MB)GZIPPED TAR archive of georeferenced topographic		    base map (1.6 MB) |

| A high-resolution plot of this publication can be purchased from Information Services, U.S. Geological Survey (1-888-ASK-USGS). |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices
U.S. Department of the Interior | U.S. Geological Survey      URL: https://pubsdata.usgs.gov/pubs/mf/2003/mf-2415/Questions or Assistance: USGS Web ContactPage Last Modified: Thr Dec  1 12:09 EDT 2016
# C_2016335EN.01002202.xml

| 12.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 335/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 335/22

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 14 July 2016 — Sea Handling SpA, in liquidation v European Commission

(Case C-271/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - Public right of access to documents of the EU institutions - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Third indent of Article 4(2) - Exceptions to the right of access to documents - Incorrect interpretation - Obligation to state reasons - Documents relating to a procedure for reviewing State aid - Protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - General presumption of application of the exception to the right of access to all documents in the administrative file - Scope of the presumption of confidentiality - Application for access to the complaint which gave rise to an inquiry procedure - Refusal of access - Overriding public interest))

(2016/C 335/30)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Sea Handling SpA, in liquidation (represented by: B. Nascimbene and M. Merola, avvocati)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: F. Clotuche-Duvieusart, D. Grespan and D. Nardi, acting as Agents)

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 Sea Handling SpA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sea Handling SpA to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.

1

---
----

| QBMKE\5874878.4 |   |   |
|-----------------|--------|--------|

----

| QBMKE\5874878.4 |   |   |
|-----------------|--------|--------|

----

| QBMKE\5874878.4 |   |   |
|-----------------|--------|--------|

----

| QBMKE\5874878.4 |   |   |
|-----------------|--------|--------|

----

| QBMKE\5874878.4 |   |   |
|-----------------|--------|--------|

----

| QBMKE\5874878.4 |   |   |
|-----------------|--------|--------|

----

|   | M&I MARSHALL & ILSLEY BANK                                                                                                         |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   | By:______________________________________Title:______________________________________                                                      |
|   |   Attest:_____________________________________Title:______________________________________                                       |
|   |   TWIN DISC, INCORPORATED  By:______________________________________ Title:______________________________________ |

| QBMKE\5874878.4 |   |   |
|-----------------|--------|--------|

----
I support the EPA creating numeric criteria for Florida. I believe that our waters need to have higher

standards and this calls for numeric standards.

In our environment today the water quality in Florida is greatly damaged by lax standards. We see algal

blooms off our coasts and polluted water entering our ecosystems. We need to establi sh standards that

require land owners to clean their storm water. Many communities continue to expand even though they

are not properly handling their current waste.

I support EPA establishing standards that bring back the water quality that Florida ha d many years ago.

This means preventing the continued degradation of our wetlands, estuaries and marshes.

One of the biggest causes of our water pollution is the continued destruction of our wetlands and

estuaries that originally captured pollutants. At the same time mining continues to degrade our

environment. Over use of fertilizer has the same impact.

We need to establish higher standards for pollutants entering our water bodies, particularly those that

drain into our estuaries and into our oce ans.

Regards,

Drew Martin

Conservation Chair, Loxahatchee Group, Sierra Club

500 Lake Ave. #102

Lake Worth, Fl. 33460
#### B. Altman & Co. *v.*United States

No. 6439.

Entry No. 748473, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, March 5, 1946, etc.

Certified March 8, 1946, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., April 1, 1946, etc.

(Decided October 10, 1946)

*Marlow & Hines*for the plaintiff.

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

Cole, Judge

(Abstract): These appeals for reappraisement of various items= of merchandise concern the so-called British purchase tajq described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48.” The said tax was held not to be an item to be included in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (e)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

An agreed set of facts shows export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (d)), to be the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise, and that such statutory values for the articles in question are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.
No. 44235.

#### Protests 832908-G, etc., of American Straw Goods Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is bodies, hoods, forms, or shapes similar to those the subject of *Cohn*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 166, C. D. 314). The protests were therefore sustained.
# C_2015406EN.01004601.xml

| 7.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 406/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 406/46

---

Action brought on 19 October 2015 — ZZ v Commission

(Case F-91/15)

(2015/C 406/48)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis and N. de Montigny, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission’s decision to apply the medical reservation clause in Article 32 of the CEOS, in so far as it does not give the applicant the invalidity allowance and compensation in respect of the non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decisions of the Commission of 16 September 2014 applying the medical reservation in Article 32 of the CEOS to the applicant and refusing to give him the invalidity allowance; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decisions of the Commission of 16 September 2014 applying the medical reservation in Article 32 of the CEOS to the applicant and refusing to give him the invalidity allowance;

| — | Order the Commission to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 50  000 in compensation for the non-material harm suffered and to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Commission to pay the applicant a sum of EUR 50  000 in compensation for the non-material harm suffered and to pay the costs.

---