alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Paine, *Adm’r, versus*McIntire.

The remedy for an administrator *de bonis non,*upon an unsatisfied judgment, recovered by the original administrator, is by *scire facias.*Debt will not lie.

Note.—Wells, J. took no part in this decision; having, at the time of the argument, been fengaged in jury trials in another county.

Debt, brought by an administrator *de bonis non*upon an unsatisfied judgment recovered by the original administrator against this defendant.

*Jewett*and *Crosby*for the defendant

objected: — 1st. That the action must be in the name of the former administrator or his executor or administrator.

2d. That the remedy is not by action of debt, but by *scire facias.*

*A. W.*Paine, for the plaintiff, cited R. S. c. 113, § 18; 6 Mete. 197; 1 B. & C. 150; 8 Cowen, 333; 15 Mass. 374; 1 Chit, on PI. 15 ; 3 Rand. 287.

Howard, J.

By the common law, an administrator *de bonis non*cannot execute a judgment recovered by a former executor, or administrator, but may maintain a new action. *Snape*v. Norgate, Cro. Car. 167; *Yaites*v. *Gough,*Yelv. 83; *Barnhurst,*Yelv. 83; *Ket*v. *Life,*Yelv. 125; *Turner*v. *Davies,*2 Saund. 149; *Grout*v. *Chamberlain,*4 Mass. 611, 613; *Dale*v. *Roosevelt,*8 Cowen, 333.

In England the law has been changed by an act of parliament, 17 Car. 2, c. 8; but here the modification has been made by our own statutes, 1821, c. 52, § 20; R. S. c. 120, § 8. These statutes furnish a remedy for the administrator *de bonis non*by *scire facias*only, on a judgment rendered for a prior administrator. He may pursue that remedy, but cannot maintain an action of debt on such judgment, under existing laws. *Plaintiff nonsuit.*
# C_2016048EN.01010201.xml

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/102 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/102

---

Action brought on 23 November 2015 — ZZ v EASA

(Case F-144/15)

(2016/C 048/118)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

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

Applicant:

Defendant: European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the European Aviation Safety Agency not to extend the applicant’s unpaid leave on personal grounds for an additional year.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the decision of the Authority Empowered to Conclude a Contract of Employment of 15 January 2015 no tot extend the applicant’s unpaid leave on personal grounds for an additional year; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Authority Empowered to Conclude a Contract of Employment of 15 January 2015 no tot extend the applicant’s unpaid leave on personal grounds for an additional year;

| — | Order the EASA to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the EASA to pay the costs.

---
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 135 

Recognizing Pennsylvania hunters for their continued commitment to safety 

and for setting a new State safety record in 2006. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 1, 2007 

Mr. CARNEY (for himself, Mr. DENT, Mr. GERLACH, Mr. HOLDEN, Mr. MURTHA, Mr. PATRICK J. MURPHY of Pennsylvania, Mr. ALTMIRE, Mr. SHUSTER, and Mr. KANJORSKI) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government 

Reform 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Recognizing Pennsylvania hunters for their continued commitment to safety and for setting a new State safety 

record in 2006. 

Whereas in 2006 Pennsylvania hunters set a new State safety 

record; 

Whereas Pennsylvania hunters continue year after year to 

improve their safety record; 

Whereas much of the success of this safety record can be contributed to hunter education training and the role of responsible hunters in the field; 

Whereas volunteer hunter education instructors have also 

greatly contributed to the safety of hunters; and 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
2 

•HCON 135 IH 

Whereas hunters are the vital link in preserving and maintaining the great natural resources in Pennsylvania, including wild places: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That the Congress recognizes Pennsylvania 

3 hunters for their continued commitment to safety and for 

4 setting a new State safety record in 2006. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC77 with BILLS
# C_2018052EN.01004401.xml

| 12.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/44

---

Order of the General Court of 14 December 2017 — Airdata v Commission

(Case T-305/15) (1)

1

(2018/C 052/58)

Language of the case: English

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 270, 17.8.2015.

1

---
LANE

DOUGLAS

SISKIYOU

LINN

JACKSON

COOS

LEWIS

CURRY

CLALLAM

JEFFERSON

POLK

JOSEPHINE

MASON

COWLITZ

GRAYS HARBOR

PACIFIC

MARION

LINCOLN

TRINITY

HUMBOLDT

CLARK

PIERCE

TILLAMOOK

CLATSOP

CLACKAMAS

KING

DEL NORTE

YAMHILL

BENTON

COLUMBIA

THURSTON

WHATCOM

SKAGIT

KLAMATH

KITSAP

WASHINGTON

SHASTA

SKAMANIA

SNOHOMISH

MULTNOMAH

ISLAND

WAHKIAKUM

SAN JUAN

 ̄ 0 6 12 18 24 3

Nautical Miles

ATTENTION USER: This map is a product of the Minerals Management Service (MMS),

which is an agency of the U.S. Department of the Interior. The mission of MMS

is to manage the mineral resources of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in an 

environmentally sound and safe manner and to timely collect, verify and distribute

mineral revenues from Federal and Indian lands. 

The MMS does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of this map nor assume any

reponsibility or liability for any reliance action. This map is not intended for use as

a navigational tool nor as a legal document for Federal leasing purposes.

Programmatic EIS for Outer Continental Shelf Renewable Energy and Alternate Use

Not For Navigational Use

Oregon Washington OCS Planning Area

Current Uses on the Outer Continental Shelf

60

Federal 

B

o

u

n

da

ry

-

S

at

et

Scale: 1:1,000,000

Washington

Legend

Federal - State Boundary

Bathymetric Contour (feet)

National Marine Sanctuary

OCS Planning Area

National Wildlife Refuge

National Park

Military Warning Zone

County

3065

Oregon

William L.

Finley

National 

Wildlife

Refuge

Bandon

Marsh

National 

Wildlife

Refuge

Ankeny

National

Wildlife

Refuge

Baskett

Slough

National

Wildlife

Refuge

Tualatin

River

National

Wildlife

Refuge

Ridgefield

National

Wildlife

Refuge

Lewis and Clark

National

Wildlife

Refuge

Nisqually

National

Wildlife

Refuge

Willapa

National

Wildlife

Refuge

Nestucca

Bay

National

Wildlife

Refuge

Siletz

Bay

National

Wildlife

Refuge

10

0

2

0

0

3

0

0

400

Grays

Harbor

National

Wildlife

Refuge
#### PYRAMID TRAVEL INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. EMIRATES AIRLINES, a Dubai United Arab Emerates corporation, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 03-56523.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted April 6, 2005.

Decided Sept. 16, 2005.

Surjit P. Soni, Esq., Pasadena, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Leo E. Lundberg, Jr., Daniel Harrison Wu, Esq., Soni Law Firm, Pasadena, CA, Edwin V. Woodsome, Jr., Esq., Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.

*858Before: SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, PREGERSON, and TROTT, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

This is an appeal from a grant of summary judgment for the defendant, Emirates Airlines. Pyramid Travel brought this action claiming that Emirates tortiously caused SriLankan Airlines, Ltd. to cancel its travel agency relationship with Pyramid. It asserts intentional and negligent interference with economic relations, as well as fraud on the part of Emirates. *See Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed, Martin Corp.,*29 Cal.4th 1134, 1158, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 29, 63 P.3d 937 (Cal.2003); *Della Penna v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.,*11 Cal.4th 376, 380, 389, 393, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 436, 902 P.2d 740 (Cal.1995).

To prove any of these claims, Pyramid would have to establish, inter alia, that Emirates took some action or directed conduct designed to disrupt relations between Pyramid and SriLankan. The district court correctly ruled that Pyramid failed to present any evidence linking the allegedly fraudulent statements made by Sri Lankan employees to Emirates. The district court’s grant of Emirates’s motion for summary judgment, and denial of Pyramid’s motion for reconsideration are thus AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
Case No. 8,611.

#### LUXOM v. OSGOOD.

[See Case No. 8,608.]
(logo) pwc

 

 

**Report of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm**

 

 

To the Board of Directors andshareholders of CoreLogic, Inc.:

 

We have examinedmanagement’s assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessmentof Compliance, that CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc. (the"Company"), a subsidiary of CoreLogic, Inc. complied with theservicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and ExchangeCommission's Regulation AB for all loans for commercial mortgage loanoutsourcing customers for which the Company served as the commercial taxservice provider (the "Platform"), as of December 31, 2016 and forthe year then ended, only including 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(ii),1122(d)(2)(v), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii)and 1122(d)(4)(xiii), which the Company has determined are applicable to theservicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Managementis responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Ourresponsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on ourexamination.

 

Our examination was conductedin accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company AccountingOversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a testbasis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicableservicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considerednecessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selectedservicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether theCompany performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicableservicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected servicingactivities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report.Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errorsthat may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may haveaffected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company duringthe period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides areasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legaldetermination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion,management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicableservicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2016 for all loansfor commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the Company servedas the commercial tax service provider is fairly stated, in all materialrespects.

 

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers

 

February 6, 2017

 

 

*PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP,2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 1800, Dallas TX 75201-2997*

*T: 214-746-6500, F:214-712-6660,*www.pwc.com
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 314 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 314

 Designating Thursday, November 17, 2005, as ``Feed America Thursday''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 15, 2005

    Mr. Hatch (for himself and Mr. Bennett) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Designating Thursday, November 17, 2005, as ``Feed America Thursday''.

Whereas Thanksgiving Day celebrates the spirit of selfless giving and an 
        appreciation for family and friends;
Whereas the spirit of Thanksgiving Day is a virtue upon which our Nation was 
        founded;
Whereas 33,000,000 Americans, including 13,000,000 children, continue to live in 
        households that do not have an adequate supply of food;
Whereas almost 3,000,000 of those children experience hunger; and
Whereas selfless sacrifice breeds a genuine spirit of Thanksgiving, both 
        affirming and restoring fundamental principles in our society: Now, 
        therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates Thursday, November 17, 2005, as ``Feed 
        America Thursday''; and
            (2) calls upon the people of the United States to sacrifice 
        2 meals on Thursday, November 17, 2005, and to donate the money 
        that they would have spent on food to a religious or charitable 
        organization of their choice for the purpose of feeding the 
        hungry.
                                 <all>
```
III 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 522 

Celebrating the 150th anniversary of the cities of Bristol, Tennessee and 

Bristol, Virginia. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 27, 2006 

Mr. FRIST (for himself, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. WARNER, and Mr. ALLEN) 

submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Celebrating the 150th anniversary of the cities of Bristol, 

Tennessee and Bristol, Virginia. 

Whereas the twin cities of Bristol, Tennessee and Bristol, 

Virginia were officially chartered in 1856, celebrated the 

Bristol Centennial in 1956, and have organized to celebrate the Bristol Sesquicentennial in 2006; 

Whereas the Bristol Sesquicentennial theme, ‘‘Celebrating 

150 Years of Heritage and Harmony’’ underscores the 

duality of Bristol as a cohesion of 2 separate cities with 

1 communal spirit; 

Whereas the ‘‘Bristol Sign’’, listed in the National Register 

of Historic Places, serves to exemplify the communal 

spirit of Bristol, bridge the States of Tennessee and Virginia over the cooperatively named ‘‘State Street’’, and 

declare Bristol ‘‘A Good Place to Live’’; 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
2 

•SRES 522 ATS 

Whereas the people of Bristol continue to work to preserve 

structures of historical significance, including the Paramount Theatre, the Old Customs House, and the historic 

train station; 

Whereas the phonographic recordings known as the Bristol 

Sessions launched the country music careers of the 

Carter Family, the Stonemans, and Jimmie Rogers, and 

prompted historians to describe Bristol as the ‘‘Big 

Bang’’ of modern country music; 

Whereas country music is a central part of the history of 

Bristol, which Congress recognized as the ‘‘Birthplace of 

Country Music’’; 

Whereas the history and economic development of Bristol is 

intimately tied to commercial transportation and Bristol 

countinues to serve as an important commercial hub for 

the surrounding region; and 

Whereas automotive racing is integral to the identity of Bristol and the ‘‘World’s Fastest Half-Mile’’ at the Bristol 

Motor Speedway continues to offer exciting events to 

scores of racing fans: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) acknowledges the cultural and historic 

3 achievements of the people of Bristol, Tennessee and 

4 Bristol, Virginia; and 

5 (2) congratulates the twin cities of Bristol on 

6 their sesquicentennial. 

Æ 


hmoore on PROD1PC68 with HMBILLS
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of
the undersigned officers of United Refining Company, a Pennsylvania corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended November 30, 2004 (the Form 10-Q/A) of the Company
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.



|                      |  |     |  |                                                 
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------
|Dated: April 28, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ John A. Catsimatidis                        
|                      |  |     |  | John A. Catsimatidis Principal Executive Officer
|                      |  |    
|Dated: April 28, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ James E. Murphy                             
|                      |  |     |  | James E. Murphy Principal Financial Officer     



The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of Form 10-Q/A or as a separate
disclosure document.



A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to United Refining Company and will be retained by United Refining Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
# C_2016296EN.01004401.xml

| 16.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 296/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 296/44

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (3rd Chamber) of 30 June 2016 — Kaufmann v Commission

(Case F-69/15)

((Civil service - Social security - Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme - Home nurse services - Prior authorisation - Conditions - Obligation to use service-providers with legal authorisation to provide home nurse or ‘nursing’ services - Principle of non-discrimination - Principle of protection of legitimate expectations - Duty to have regard for the welfare of officials - Limits - Action manifestly lacking any legal basis - Direction to the administration - Manifest inadmissibility - Article 81 of the Rules of Procedure))

(2016/C 296/54)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Sandra Kaufmann (Böhl-Iggelheim, Germany) (represented by: F. Turk, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T.S. Bohr and C. Ehrbar, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision not to grant a former official, of whom the applicant is the legal successor, prior authorisation for entitlement to the services of a home nurse, and an application for the applicant to be granted the sums to cover payment of the home nurse services provided by the company concerned, with effect as of 1 January 2014.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as in part manifestly inadmissible and in part manifestly unfounded.

| 2. | Ms Sandra Kaufmann is to bear her own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Ms Sandra Kaufmann is to bear her own costs and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Commission.

---
(Reap. Dec. 8849)

#### John V. Carr & Son, Inc., et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 11345, etc.

(Decided June 20, 1957)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiffs.

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

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals to reappraisement, enumerated in schedule *“A,”*hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been limited, through the written stipulation of submission, to the calculat*699ing machines identified on the invoices by style numbers 51405 and 51435. As to all other merchandise, the appeals have been abandoned.

The agreed set of facts upon which these appeals for reappraisement have been submitted establish cost of production, as defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question, and that such statutory value for these calculating machines is in each instance the appraised unit value, less 40 per centum, plus the cost of all containers and coverings, and I so hold. As to all other merchandise, the appeals for reappraisement are dismissed.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
(Reap. Dec. 8863)

#### Carbons, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 722911, etc.

(Decided June 20, 1957)

*Fred Bennett; Jordan & Klingaman,*associate counsel; for the plaintiff.

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

Johnson, 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:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the court,

> 1- That all the merchandise on the entries the subject of the reappraisement appeals enumerated in the schedule hereto annexed and made a part hereof consists of arc light carbons imported from Prance.

> 2- That the issues in the aforesaid appeals are the same in all material respects as those decided in *Bert Friedberg & Company*v. *United States,*R. D. 8590, and that the record in the said R. D. 8590 may be incorporated in the record in each of the aforesaid appeals.

> 3- That the appraised value of the merchandise in each of the aforesaid appeals, less 19.50 per cent, is equal to the price, at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States, at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale for home consumption to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature, and all other costs, charges, and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States, and that, on or about the dates of exportation of the merchandise herein involved, merchandise such as or similar thereto was not sold or offered for sale in the country of exportation for export to the United States.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the reappraisement appeals herein may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

On the agreed facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by section 8 of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value in each instance was the appraised value, less 19.50 per centum.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
No. 49862.

#### Protests 578543-G, etc., of Henry Pollak, Inc., et al. (San Francisco, etc.).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

An examination, of the official papers disclosed no reason for disturbing the classification made by the collector. The protests were therefore overruled.