alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                    ------------


                         CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906
                                     OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Unico American
Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended September 30, 2006, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Lester A. Aaron,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 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 all material
    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



                    /s/  Lester A. Aaron
                    --------------------
           Name:    Lester A. Aaron
           Title:   Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
           Date:    November 8, 2006




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 electronic version 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 to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2017006EN.01002202.xml

| 9.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/22

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 26 October 2016 — Westermann Lernspielverlage GmbH, formerly Westermann Lernspielverlag GmbH v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-482/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - EU trade mark application - Figurative mark containing the word elements ‘bambino’ and ‘lük’ - Opposition proceedings - Earlier EU figurative mark containing the word element ‘bambino’ - Partial refusal of registration - Revocation of the earlier mark on which the opposition was based - Letter from the applicant informing the General Court of that revocation - Refusal of the General Court to add that letter to the case file - Failure to state reasons))

(2017/C 006/27)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Westermann Lernspielverlage GmbH, formerly Westermann Lernspielverlag GmbH (represented by: A. Nordemann and M. Maier, Rechtsanwälte)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) (represented by: J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agent)

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 Westermann Lernspielverlage GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Westermann Lernspielverlage GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.

1

---
| (logo) WELLS

           FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334

 

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

 

**ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

** **

** **

Reference is herebymade to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of March 1, 2016,by and among J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., asDepositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, MidlandLoan Services, A Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as SpecialServicer, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Certificate Administrator,Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee, and Pentalpha SurveillanceLLC, as Operating Advisor and as Asset Representations Reviewer, with respectto Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2016-C1 (the"Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise definedshall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section11.09 of this Agreement, I, Leslie Hayton, Managing Director of CommercialMortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.           A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period fromJanuary 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”), and of itsperformance per the Agreement during such period has been made under mysupervision, and

 

2.           To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer hasfulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respectsthroughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day ofFebruary 2019.

 

 

/s/Leslie Hayton

Leslie Hayton

Managing Director

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo) Together  we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
No. 46351.

#### Protests 787275-G of G. Albrecht Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, I.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 43100.

#### Protests 362327-G, etc., of Azoon & Bonamy (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Venice lace similar to that involved in *Littwitz*v. *United States*(3 Cust. Ct. 123, C. D. 217) was held dutiable at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 as claimed.
# C_2015146EN.01005202.xml

| 4.5.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 146/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.5.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 146/52

---

Action brought on 27 February 2015 — ZZ and ZZ v Court of Justice

(Case F-36/15)

(2015/C 146/74)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: ZZ and ZZ (represented by: J.-N. Louis, R. Metz, N. de Montigny, D. Verbeke and T. Van Lysebeth, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: Court of Justice of the European Union

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Application for annulment of the decisions fixing 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

The applicants claim that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the applicants’ salary slips in respect of July 2014 in so far as they apply for the first time Article 8 of Annex VII to the version of the Staff Regulations in force since 1 January 2014 in order to fix the reimbursement of their travel expenses; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the applicants’ salary slips in respect of July 2014 in so far as they apply for the first time Article 8 of Annex VII to the version of the Staff Regulations in force since 1 January 2014 in order to fix the reimbursement of their travel expenses;

| — | order the Court of Justice to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Court of Justice to pay the costs.

---
Exhibit 12.1

United Air Lines, Inc. and SubsidiaryCompanies
Computation of Ratio of Earningsto Fixed Charges    Nine Months Ended September 30    20032002 (In Millions)Earnings(loss):    Loss before income taxes, extraordinary item     and cumulative effect of accounting change$ (2,455)$ (2,117)  Fixed charges, from below478 597   Interest capitalized(2)(22)         Earnings (loss)$ (1,979)$ (1,542) ===== =====    Fixed charges:      Interest expense$ 373 $ 453   Portion of rental expense representative        of the interest factor105144         Fixed charges$ 478 $ 597  ===== =====    Ratio ofearnings to fixed charges(a)(a) ===== =====       
______
(a) Earnings were inadequate to coverfixed charges by $2.5 billion in 2003 and $2.1 billion in 2002.
# C_2017338EN.01002301.xml

| 9.10.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 338/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.10.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 338/23

---

Corrigendum to the notice in the Official Journal in Case T-396/15

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 283 of 28 August 2017
  )

Official Journal of the European Union C 283 of 28 August 2017

(2017/C 338/26)

The notice in the Official Journal in Case T-396/15, Herm. Sprenger v EUIPO — web2get (Shape of an articulated stirrup), should read as follows:

Herm. Sprenger v EUIPO — web2get (Shape of an articulated stirrup)

Order of the General Court of 30 May 2017 — Herm. Sprenger v EUIPO — web2get (Shape of an articulated stirrup)

(Case T-396/15) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for a declaration of invalidity - Withdrawal of the application for a declaration of invalidity - No need to adjudicate))

(2017/C 283/74)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Herm. Sprenger GmbH & Co. KG (Iserlohn, Germany) (represented by: V. Schiller, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Söder and A. Schifko, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: web2get GmbH & Co. KG (Dülmen, Germany)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 22 April 2015 (Case R 520/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between web2get GmbH & Co. KG and Herm. Sprenger GmbH & Co. KG.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | Herm. Sprenger GmbH & Co. KG shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Herm. Sprenger GmbH & Co. KG shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 302, 14.9.2015.

1

---
No. 43104.

#### Protest 965642-G of Wm. Fleissner & Co. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

It was stipulated that the vegetable juices in question are the same as those the subject of *Fleissner*v. *United States*(2 Cust. Ct. 100, C. D. 96). The claim at 20 percent under paragraph 1558 was therefore sustained.
No. 54225.

#### Endo Products, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 147111-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the sheep gall and ox gall in question are the same in all material respects as the substance passed upon in *G. D. Searle & Co.*v. *United States*(21 Cust. Ct. 112, C. D. 1138). The claim for free entry under paragraph 1669 was therefore sustained.
#### Meakin & Ridgway, Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6428.

Entry No. 719042-1⁄2, etc.

Invoices dated Hanley, England, August 21, 1941, etc.

Certified September 3, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., October 10, 1941, etc.

(Decided October 9, 1946)

*Benjamin A. Levett*for the plaintiffs.

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

Keefe, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

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 values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar., cages.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Before the First Division,

January 25, 1940

No. 43102.

#### Protest 975673-G of Mutual Supply Co. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 39806 the merchandise in question was held dutiable as unsalted dried fish at *1%*cents per pound under paragraph 717 (c) as claimed.
# C_2017437EN.01002602.xml

| 18.12.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 437/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 437/26

---

Judgment of the General Court of 7 November 2017 — Frame v EUIPO — Bianca-Moden (BiancalunA)

(Case T-628/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU figurative mark BiancalunA — Rejection - Earlier national figurative mark bianca - Relative ground for refusal - No likelihood of confusion - Identity of the goods - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2017/C 437/31)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Frame Srl (San Giuseppe Vesuviano, Italy) (represented by: E. Montelione, M. Borghese and R. Giordano, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Bonne, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Bianca-Moden GmbH & Co. KG (Ochtrup, Germany) (represented by: P. Lange, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 August 2015 (Case R 2720/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Bianca-Moden and Frame.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 7 August 2015 (Case R 2720/2014-5); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 7 August 2015 (Case R 2720/2014-5);

| 2. | Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Frame Srl; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders EUIPO to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Frame Srl;

| 3. | Orders Bianca-Moden GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Bianca-Moden GmbH & Co. KG to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 7, 11.1.2016.

1

---
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 This is notice that on October 18, 2006, Noramco Inc., 500 Swedes Landing Road, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for registration as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedule II: Drug
ScheduleRaw Opium (9600)
IIConcentrate of Poppy Straw (9670)
II
 The company plans to import the listed controlled substances to manufacture other controlled substances. As noted in a previous notice published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     on September 23, 1975, (40 FR 43745), all applicants for registration to import a basic class of any controlled substances in schedule I or II are, and will continue to be, required to demonstrate to the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration, that the requirements for such registration pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 958(a), 21 U.S.C. 823(a), and 21 CFR 1301.34(b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) are satisfied. Dated: April 17, 2007. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator,  Office of Diversion Control Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. E7-8132 Filed 4-27-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
# C_2019187EN.01005901.xml

| 3.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 187/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 187/59

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 April 2019 — Deutsche Lufthansa v Commission

(Case T-492/15) (1)

(Action for annulment - State aid - Measures implemented by Germany in favour of Frankfurt Hahn airport and airlines using that airport - Decision regarding the measures in favour of Frankfurt Hahn airport as State aid compatible with the internal market and finding no State aid in favour of airlines using that airport - Lack of individual concern - Lack of direct concern - Inadmissibility)

(2019/C 187/63)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Deutsche Lufthansa AG (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: A. Martin-Ehlers, lawyer)

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

Interveners in support of the defendant: Land Rheinland-Pfalz (Germany) (represented by: Professor C. Koenig) and Ryanair DAC, formerly Ryanair Ltd (Dublin, Ireland) (represented by: G. Berrisch, lawyer, and B. Byrne, Solicitor)

Objet

Action under Article 263 TFEU for the annulment of Commission Decision (EU) 2016/789 of 1 October 2014 on the State aid SA.21121 (C29/08) (ex NN 54/07) implemented by Germany concerning the financing of Frankfurt Hahn airport and the financial relations between the airport and Ryanair (OJ 2016 L 134, p. 46).

Order

| 1) | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1)

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2) | Deutsche Lufthansa AG is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Deutsche Lufthansa AG is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 363, 3.11.2015.

---
No. 50650.

#### Protests 117525-K, etc., of R. C. Williams & Co., Inc., et al, (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities, cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 7
<CIK> 0000101115
<NAME> UNITED COMPANIES LIFE INS. CO.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         1,119,197
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                           51,918
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                             52,561
<EQUITIES>                                         985
<MORTGAGE>                                     315,515
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               1,553,055
<CASH>                                           5,723
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                              34,047
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          92,009
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,740,263
<POLICY-LOSSES>                              1,539,044
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                              2,246
<POLICY-OTHER>                                   2,560
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                              750
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                    140
<COMMON>                                         8,401
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     160,157
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,740,263
<PREMIUMS>                                       1,897
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             31,440
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             (1,558)
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<BENEFITS>                                       2,383
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                      3,096
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            23,629
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,671
<INCOME-TAX>                                       939
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,732
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,732
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                   2,989
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                             15,504
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                               14,304
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                              23,708
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                 6,529
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                  2,560
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0
        

</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alejandro MANJARREZ-ZUNIGA, aka Alexander Garcia-Lopez aka Alex Zuniga-Lopez aka Alex Zu Iay Lopez, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-10556.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 4, 2005.

*58Roger W. Dokken, AUSA, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Phoenix, AZ, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Atmore L. Baggot, Esq., Attorney at Law, Apache Junction, AZ, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Alejandro Manjarrez-Zuniga appeals his conviction and the 71-month sentence imposed after his guilty plea to illegal reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1362(a). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we dismiss this appeal.

Appellant contends that his appeal waiver is inapplicable because his sentence falls outside what was agreed upon in his plea agreement. The record belies his contention.

Accordingly, we dismiss in light of the valid appeal waiver. *See United States v. Nguyen,*235 F.3d 1179, 1182 (9th Cir.2000) (stating that an appeal waiver is valid when it is entered into knowingly and voluntarily); *see also United States v. Cardenas,*405 F.3d 1046, 1048 (9th Cir.2005) (holding that the changes in sentencing law imposed by *United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), did not render waiver of appeal involuntary and unknowing).

DISMISSED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.