alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2017063EN.01002501.xml

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/25

---

Judgment of the General Court of 19 January 2017 — Morgan & Morgan v EUIPO — Grupo Morgan & Morgan (Morgan & Morgan)

(Case T-399/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU figurative mark Morgan & Morgan - Earlier EU figurative mark MMG TRUST MIEMBRO DEL GRUPO MORGAN & MORGAN - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 063/34)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Morgan & Morgan Srl International Insurance Brokers (Conegliano, Italy) (represented by: F. Caricato and F. Gatti, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Grupo Morgan & Morgan (Panama, Panama)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 7 May 2015 (Case R 1657/2014 1) relating to opposition proceedings between Grupo Morgan & Morgan and Morgan & Morgan International Insurance Brokers.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Morgan & Morgan Srl International Insurance Brokers to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Morgan & Morgan Srl International Insurance Brokers to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 311, 21.9.2015.

1

---
-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, 

UNPUBLISHED 

December 18, 2014 

v No. 317605 

Wayne Circuit Court 

JAMES WILLIAM GORE, LC No. 12-008599-FC 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

Before: O’CONNELL, P.J., and BORRELLO and GLEICHER, JJ. 

O’CONNELL, P.J. (concurring in result only). 

 I concur in the result only. 

/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
(Reap. Dec. 8977)

Entry No. 15808, etc.

#### F. W. Woolworth Company v. United States

(Decided August 29, 1957)

*Sharretts, Paley*& *Carter*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

*635Olivee, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” attached hereto and made a part hereof, relate to glass Christmas tree ornaments exported from the Western Zone of Germany, directly or indirectly, by Siegfried Heinkelein or Lauscher Glasindustrie and entered at the port of Boston, Mass.

In a written stipulation of submission, it is established that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is export value, as defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, and that such statutory value for these articles is in each instance the appraised value, less the amounts added under duress, packing included, and I so hold. Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 12


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                             Tucson Electric Power Company
                                  Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                                (In Thousands of Dollars)


                                                                       12 Months Ending
                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   March 31,   December 31,   December 31,    December 31,   December 31,   December 31,
                                     1998         1997           1996            1995           1994           1993 
                                   --------    ------------   ------------    ------------   ------------   ------------
<S>                                <C>         <C>            <C>             <C>            <C>            <C>
Fixed Charges:

  Interest on Long-Term Debt       66,567         63,573         59,647         69,174         69,353          68,053       
  Other Interest*                  10,560          9,640         11,721          9,113          7,591           9,175

  Interest on Capital Lease
Obligations**                      86,826         83,019         84,383         83,986         82,511          81,932
                                  -------         ------        -------        -------        -------         -------
Total Fixed Charges               163,953         15,232        155,751        162,273        159,455         159,160


Net Income                         70,472         83,572        120,852         54,905         20,740        (25,816)

Add (Deduct):

  Income Taxes - Operating
  Expense                          19,709         19,297          9,795          8,920            (91)            (91)
  Income Taxes - Other            (22,443)       (41,401)       (91,950)       (29,356)        (4,820)         (5,186)
  Total Fixed Charges             163,953        156,232        155,751        162,273        159,455         159,160
                                  --------       --------       --------       --------       --------        --------
Total Earnings before Taxes and
Fixed Charges                     231,691        217,700        194,448        196,742        175,284         128,067

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed          1.413          1.393          1.248          1.212          1.099           0.805
Charges

<FN>
*   Excludes recognition of Allowance for Borrowed Funds Used During Construction.
**  Capital Lease Interest Paid from Statement of Cash Flows.
</TABLE>
# C_2017022EN.01003001.xml

| 23.1.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.1.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/30

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2016 — Groupe Go Sport v EUIPO — Design Go (GO SPORT)

(Case T-703/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for an EU word mark GO SPORT - Earlier national word marks GO - Partial refusal of registration by the Opposition Division - Late filing of the statement of grounds of appeal - Inadmissibility of the appeal brought before the Board of Appeal - Article 60 of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Rule 49(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2868/95))

(2017/C 022/40)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Groupe Go Sport (Sassenage, France) (represented by: G. Arbant and E. Henry-Mayer, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Design Go Ltd (London, 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 22 September 2015 (Case R 569/2015-2), relating to opposition proceedings between Design Go and Groupe Go Sport.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Groupe Go Sport to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Groupe Go Sport to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 48, 8.2.2016.

1

---
Exhibit 35.18



|     |  |                                                                                                          
|---- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|LOGO |  | Commercial Mortgage Servicing D1050-084, 8th Fl 401 South Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202 1-800-326-1334

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 1, 2016, by and among DEUTSCHE
MORTGAGE & ASSET RECEIVING CORPORATION, as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, MIDLAND LOAN SERVICES, A DIVISION OF PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Special Servicer, WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, Paying Agent and Custodian and PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as Operating Advisor and Asset Representations Reviewer with respect to Commercial
Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-C1 (the Agreement). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 10.11 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify
that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (the Reporting Period), and of its performance per the Agreement during such
period has been made under my supervision, and
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2018.



|                        
|------------------------
|LOGO                    
|Daniel Bober            
|Executive Vice President
|Wells Fargo Bank        



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
# C_2016106EN.01004901.xml

| 21.3.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/49

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 5 February 2016 –Clausen and Kristoffersen v Parliament

(Case F-62/15) (1)

1

((Civil service - Retired officials - Retirement pensions - Article 64 of the Staff Regulations - Weightings - Annual update of weightings - Article 65(2) of the Staff Regulations - Interim update - Articles 3, 4 and 8 of Annex XI to the Staff Regulations - Sensitivity threshold - Change in the cost of living - Article 65(4) of the Staff Regulations - Decision by the legislature not to update the weightings for 2013 and 2014 - Scope - Regulation No 1416/2013 - Over-estimation of the weighting for Denmark - Reduction of the weighting through the interim update mechanism - Misuse of powers))

(2016/C 106/59)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Svend Leon Clausen (Jyllinge, Denmark) and Niels Kristoffersen (Køge, Denmark) (represented by: S. Orlandi and T. Martin, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: E. Taneva and L. Deneys, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the decisions to reduce the weighting applicable to the pensions of the applicants, who are resident in Denmark, as is apparent from their pension receipts for June 2014, and a claim for compensation for the non-material damage which they claim to have suffered as a result of the different and contradictory information used to support the contested decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Clausen and Mr Kristoffersen to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Clausen and Mr Kristoffersen to bear their own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Parliament.

---

(1)  OJ C 213, 29.6.2015, p. 49.

1

---
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water

February 24, 2016

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Basis for Expedited Approval of Mitchell M5331 Revision 1.2

FROM: Glynda Smith and Steve Wendelken

Standards and Risk Management Division, Technical Support Center

TO: The Record

Background

This memo documents the modification of Mitchell Method M5331 Revision 1.2 to include the option of 

using a solid-state laser in place of a light emitting diode (LED) as the light source for the turbidimeter. 

The manufacturer cites multiple advantages relating to the use of these solid-state components, which

include longer light source lifetime, greater source stability, lower cost, better stray light rejection, 

better shock resistance and lower power consumption.

Evaluations

See attachment EPA justification for laser use in method M5331.docx

Recommendation

The performance of Mitchell Method 5331 Revision 1.2 will be equivalent to or better than the currently 

approved M5331 Revision 1.1 method.
CERTIFICATE OF ADJUSTMENT



TO:	      FIRST CHICAGO TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK AS RIGHTS AGENT UNDER 
          RIGHTS AGREEMENT DATED AS OF AUGUST 16, 1989 WITH UJB FINANCIAL 
          CORP. (NOW SUMMIT BANCORP) AND TRANSFER AGENT OF SERIES R 
          PREFERRED STOCK OF SUMMIT BANCORP

         	30 West Broadway
	         New York, NY 10007


ATTN:	    Tenders and Exchange Administration



This certificate is delivered pursuant to Section 12 of the Rights 
Agreement between UJB Financial Corp. (now Summit Bancorp) and First 
Chicago Trust Company of New York dated as of August 16, 1989.  
Any capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the same meanings 
as in such Rights Agreement.

On August 20, 1997, the Board of Directors declared a 3 for 2 stock 
split on the Common Stock, par value $1.20 of Summit Bancorp, with a 
record date of September 3, 1997 and a distribution date of September 24, 
1997.  Upon such distribution:

   	      The Adjusted Exercise Price of each right shall be $60.00.

	         The Adjusted Number of Shares which may be purchased upon the 
          exercise of a right shall be 1/150 of a share of Series R 
          Preferred Stock without par value (stated value $100).



Dated:		  August 20, 1997			        /s/ Richard F. Ober, Jr.
							                             ------------------------
                                        Richard F. Ober, Jr.
		                                      Executive Vice President & Secretary
No. 47575.

#### Protests 934968-G, etc., of Schenker *&*Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial the protests were submitted on the record in the case of *Stokby*v. *United States*(4 Cust. Ct. 343, C. D. 358) which was admitted in evidence. In accordance therewith it was held that 10 percent allowance should have been made for the weight of the gelatinous material surrounding the merchandise contained in the tins.
# C_2016343EN.01000801.xml

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/8

---

Judgment of the Court (Seventh Chamber) of 21 July 2016 (requests for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State — Belgium) — Hilde Orleans, Rudi Van Buel, Marina Apers (C-387/15) and Denis Malcorps, Myriam Rijssens, Guido Van De Walle (C-388/15) v Vlaams Gewest

(Joined Cases C-387/15 and C-388/15) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Environment - Directive 92/43/EEC - Conservation of natural habitats - Special areas of conservation - Natura 2000 site ‘Scheldt and Durme estuary from the Dutch border to Ghent’ - Development of a port area - Assessment of the implications of a plan or project for a protected site - Occurrence of adverse effects - Prior but not yet completed development of an area of an equivalent type to the part destroyed - Completion subsequent to the assessment - Article 6(3) and (4)))

(2016/C 343/11)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Hilde Orleans, Rudi Van Buel, Marina Apers (C-387/15) and Denis Malcorps, Myriam Rijssens, Guido Van De Walle (C-388/15)

Applicants:

Defendant: Vlaams Gewest

Defendant:

Intervening party: Gemeentelijk Havenbedrijf Antwerpen

Intervening party:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(3) of Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora must be interpreted as meaning that measures, contained in a plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to the management of a site of Community importance, providing, prior to the occurrence of adverse effects on a natural habitat type present thereon, for the future creation of an area of that type, but the completion of which will take place subsequently to the assessment of the significance of any adverse effects on the integrity of that site, may not be taken into consideration in that assessment. Such measures can be categorised as ‘compensatory measures’, within the meaning of Article 6(4), only if the conditions laid down therein are satisfied.

---

(1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.

1

---
# C_2019295EN.01003001.xml

| 2.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 295/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 295/30

---

Order of the General Court of 27 June 2019 — Flabeg Deutschland v Commission

(Case T-103/15) (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 295/38)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicants: Flabeg Deutschland GmbH (Nuremberg, Germany) (represented initially by: M. Küper and E.–M. Schwind, and subsequently by: J. Stein and A. Kersten, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented initially by: T. Maxian Rusche and R. Sauer, and subsequently by: T. Maxian Rusche and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents, and by H. Wollmann, lawyer)

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 Flabeg Deutschland GmbH. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The European Commission shall bear its own costs and pay the costs incurred by Flabeg Deutschland GmbH.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.

---
Before the First-Division,

April 29, 1944

No. 49387.

#### Protests 38355-K, etc., of Coty, Inc., et al. (New York.)

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Counsel for the defendant conceded that certain of the articles are properly dutiable under paragraph 1539 (b), as claimed, in view of Abstract 33583 and *Rolls Razor*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 271, C. D. 480). The only evidence before the court was four reports of the Government chemist, from which it was found that the “plaquettes publicite” are composed entirely of urea formaldehyde resin. Since there is no provision for such articles in the tariff act the court held this merchandise dutiable at 20 percent ad valorem under paragraph-1558, as claimed. *Bates*v. *United States*(T. D. 47189) followed. On-the record the bouchon capsules and socles were held properly dutiable at 50 cents per pound and 40 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1539 (b), as claimed.
<PAGE> 1

 EXHIBIT 32b

                           CERTIFICATION 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 Twin Disc, Incorporated (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending December 31, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Christopher J. Eperjesy, Vice President - Finance, Treasurer
and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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 Section 13(a) 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 results of
            operations of the Company.


September 9, 2005                        /s/ CHRISTOPHER J. EPERJESY
                                         ---------------------------
                                         Christopher J. Eperjesy
                                         Vice President - Finance, Treasurer,
                                         Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v ROBERT E. OCAMB, Seaman, U. S. Navy, Appellant

12 USCMA 492, 31 CMR 78

*493No. 15,074

November 3, 1961

*Captain John P. Gibbons,*USN, argued the cause for Appellant, Accused. With him on the brief was *Lieutenant Colonel R. G. Coyne,*USMC.

*Lieutenant John W. Boult,*USNR, argued the cause for Appellee, United States. With him on the brief was *Lieutenant Colonel L. W. Martin,*USMC.

Opinion of the Court

Quinn, Chief Judge:

The accused challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings of guilty by a special court-martial of two specifications of larceny. Each specification alleges the theft of a radio of a value less than $20.00. The principal issue is whether the accused was sufficiently identified as the person who pawned the stolen articles in a local pawn shop.

The pawn shop records which were admitted into evidence show that on separate occasions a radio was pawned by a person who signed his name as “Robert E. Ocamb” and gave his service serial number as 4817910. Each entry also had a fingerprint which was made by the person pawning the article. The print was never identified as belonging to the accused. Nor did the shop owner identify the person shown on the records as the accused. Yeoman Padilla, however, testified that he had previously “witnessed the signature of the accused.” He said the signature on one of the two pawn shop records was “to the best of . [his] knowledge” that of the accused; and he “believe [d]” the signature on the second record was also the accused’s.

A witness is competent to testify to the signature of another if he has pre-viously seen him sign his name. Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, I95i; paragraph I486, page 260. The witness need not be absolutely positive in his identification; it is sufficient if he “believes” the signature is that of the person charged with making it. Wigmore, Evidence, 3d ed, § 698; see also United States v Hurt, 9 USCMA 735, 774, 27 CMR 3. Padilla’s testi*494mony, therefore, is sufficient to connect the accused with possession of the stolen articles. Unexplained and exclusive possession of recently stolen property justifies an inference that the possessor is the thief. United States v Hairston, 9 USCMA 554, 26 CMR 334. Thus, the evidence, and the permissible inferences therefrom, substantially support the findings of guilty.

The decision of the board of review is affirmed.

Judges FERGUSON and Kilday concur.