alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2018042EN.01001302.xml

| 5.2.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 42/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.2.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 42/13

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 December 2017 — HTTS v Council

(Case T-692/15) (1)

1

((Common foreign and security policy - measures adopted against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Duty to provide reasons - Contractual liability - Sufficiently serious breach of a rule of law conferring rights on individuals))

(2018/C 042/18)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH (Hamburg, Germany) (represented by: M. Schlingmann and M. Bever, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Bishop and J.-P. Hix, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: S. Bartelt and R. Tricot, and subsequently by R. Tricot and T. Scharf, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action based on Article 268 TFEU and seeking compensation for the losses which the applicant allegedly suffered following the listing of its name, first, by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 668/2010 of 26 July 2010 implementing Article 7(2) of Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 25) in Annex V to Council Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 of 19 April 2007 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2007 L 103, p. 1) and, secondly, by Council Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 of 25 October 2010 on restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation No 423/2007 (OJ 2010 L 281, p. 1) in Annex VIII to Regulation No 961/2010.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders HTTS Hanseatic Trade Trust & Shipping GmbH to bear its own costs and to pay those of the Council of the European Union;

| 3. | Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Commission to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 59, 15.2.2016.

1

---
Palmdale Hybrid Power Project PSD Permit Number SE 09-01

Deborah Jordan to: rob, April Sommer 09/12/2011 02:00 PM

Cc: Julie Walters, Gerardo Rios, Lisa Beckham

Dear Mr. Simpson,

Thank you for your interest in EPA's proposed PSD permit for the Palmdale Hybrid Power Project. EPA 

has reviewed and considered your request for an extension of the comment period for this action. I 

decline to grant your request. Therefore, the public comment period will close as scheduled on 

September 14, 2011. Please note that comments submitted by email must be submitted no later than 

11:59 pm Pacific daylight time on September 14, 2011.

We look forward to receiving and reviewing your comments on EPA's proposed action. 

Sincerely,

Deborah Jordan

_________________

Deborah Jordan

Director, Air Division

U.S. EPA Region 9

phone: (415) 972-3133

fax: (415) 947-3581
# C_2016314EN.01000802.xml

| 29.8.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 314/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.8.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 314/8

---

Appeal brought on 1 December 2015 by Gat Microencapsulation GmbH (anciennement Gat Microencapsulation AG) against the judgment of the General Court (Sixth Chamber) delivered on 30 September 2015 in Case T-720/13: Gat Microencapsulation v EUIPO

(Case C-639/15 P)

(2016/C 314/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Gat Microencapsulation GmbH (anciennement Gat Microencapsulation AG) (represented by: S. Soler Lerma, Agent, M. C. March Cabrelles, abogada)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings:

By order of 26 May 2016 the Court of Justice (Eight Chamber) held that the appeal was inadmissible.

---
Exhibit 31.1


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


I, Arnold Simon, certify that,

(1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10Q of Aris Industries, Inc.;

(2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

(3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

(4) The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

(b) (Intentionally omitted)

(c) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

(5) The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent function):

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize, and report financial information; and

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal controls over
financial reporting;

Date:  November 13, 2003

/s/ Arnold Simon
    Chief Executive Officer
# C_2015320EN.01005201.xml

| 28.9.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/52

---

Order of the General Court of 13 July 2015 — Aguirre and Company v OHIM — Puma (Representation of a sports shoe)

(Case T-205/15) (1)

1

(2015/C 320/72)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 205, 22.6.2015.

1

---
#### CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S, LONDON, SUBSCRIBING TO POLICY NO. K879901CG479, Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellee, v. AMITY INVESTMENT, INC., a Texas corporation; William T. Brady; Kerry L. Rogers, Defendants-counter-claimants-Appellants.

No. 03-56942.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted June 7, 2005.

Decided July 21, 2005.

*749Jeri Rouse Looney, Esq., Lord, Bissell & Brook, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff-counter-defendant-Appellee.

W. Bruce Voss, Esq., Voss & Lawyers, Irvine, CA, for Defendants-counter-claimants-Appellants.

Before: LAY,* REINHARDT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

*

 The Honorable Donald P. Lay, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

This is an appeal from declaratory judgment in favor of Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London (“Lloyd’s”). The district court held that Lloyd’s was justified in rescinding an insurance policy issued on a yacht owned by Defendant Amity Investments, Inc., et al. (collectively referred to as “Insureds”). We affirm.

Captain Macpherson testified that during Hurricane Mitch in 1999, the yacht suffered damage which was repaired by William Brady at his own expense, without Lloyd’s knowledge. The district judge relied on the failure to report the damage as a ground for upholding the rescission. Lloyd’s raised this issue in its appellate brief and claimed that Insureds’ failure to disclose this damage was a material misrepresentation under the insurance contract. Insureds did not contest this claim in their opening brief and did not file a reply brief. Therefore, they waived appeal. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9); *Acosta-Huerta v. Estelle,*7 F.3d 139, 144 (9th Cir.1992). This constitutes an independent ground of support for Lloyd’s recision because the failure to disclose prior damage constitutes a material misrepresentation under the insurance contract. The district court’s decision granting rescission was not clearly erroneous.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the *750courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
| (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 tothat certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of March 1, 2016, by andamong J.P. Morgan Chase Commercial Mortgage Securities Corp., as Depositor,Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, Midland LoanServices, A Division of PNC Bank, National Association, as Special Servicer,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 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 Master Servicer during the period from March1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”), and ofits performance 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, 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 31**

**Certifications**

I, PaulVanderslice, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of theperiod covered by this report on Form 10-K of Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust 2016-GC37 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omitto state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the periodcovered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports; 

4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement(s)required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports onassessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to thisreport, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K. 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: Wells FargoBank, National Association; Midland Loan Services, a Division of PNC Bank, National Association; Park Bridge Lender Services LLC; Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas; CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc.; National Tax Search, LLC;Berkadia Commercial Mortgage LLC; KeyBank National Association; Pentalpha Surveillance LLC; C-III Asset Management LLC; and U.S. Bank National Association. 

Date: March 29, 2018 

/s/ PaulVanderslice                                

Paul Vanderslice 

President, Citigroup Commercial MortgageSecurities Inc. 

(senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor) 

 
CGCMT 2016-GC37Sarbanes-Oxley Certification (2017)
#### Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6433.

Entry No. 43, etc.

Invoices dated Hanley, England, March 14, 1941, etc.

Entered at Portland, Oreg., July 25, 1941, etc.

(Decided October 10, 1946)

*Lawrence?Tuttle & Harper (Frank L. Lawrence*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

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

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decisiop 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 cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
March 19, 1971

No. 71-15

#### Walter Raymond Wirth, BM3, U. S. Navy v Commanding Officer, USS Joseph Hewes (DE-1078).

ORDERED:

That said Petition be, and the same is, hereby dismissed.
# C_2017437EN.01002601.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-627/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark BIANCALUNA - Earlier national figurative mark bianca - Procedural economy - Relative ground for refusal - 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 437/30)

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 2952/2014-5), relating to opposition proceedings between Bianca-Moden and Frame.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Frame Srl to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Frame Srl to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 68, 22.2.2016.

1

---
# C_2017104EN.01004601.xml

| 3.4.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 104/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 104/46

---

Judgment of the General Court of 16 February 2017 — Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult v EUIPO (Limbic® Map)

(Case T-513/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark Limbic® Map - Lack of distinctive character - Absolute ground for refusal - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 104/64)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult AG (Munich, Germany) (represented by: R. Kunze and G. Würtenberger, lawyers)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 June 2015 (Case R 1973/2014-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign Limbic® Map as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 June 2015 (Case R 1973/2014-1); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) of 23 June 2015 (Case R 1973/2014-1);

| 2. | Orders that EUIPO shall bear its own costs as well as those incurred by Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult AG. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders that EUIPO shall bear its own costs as well as those incurred by Gruppe Nymphenburg Consult AG.

---

(1)  OJ C 354, 26.10.2015.

1

---
# C_2016326EN.01000602.xml

| 5.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/6

---

Appeal brought on 23 July 2015 by Harper Hygienics S.A. against the judgment delivered by the General Court on 13 May 2015 in Case T-364/12, Harper Hygienics v European Union Intellectual Property Office — Clinique Laboratories (CLEANIC Kindii)

(Case C-475/15 P)

(2016/C 326/09)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Harper Hygienics S.A. (represented by: D. Rzążewska, radca prawny)

Appellant:

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office and Clinique Laboratories, LLC

Other parties to the proceedings:

By order of the Court of Justice (Tenth Chamber) of 7 April 2016, the appeal was declared inadmissible in part and was dismissed as to the remainder.

---
#### W. R. Zanes & Co. *v.*United States

No. 7442.

Invoices dated Mexico City, D. F., November 24, 1944, etc.

Certified November 27, 1944, etc.

Entered at Houston, Tex., December 13, 1944, etc.

Entry Nos. 91-H; 96-H.

*320(Decided November 19, 1947)

*Edward A. Kelly*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Bichará H. Welsh,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Cline, Judge:

These are appeals for reappraisement of .cotton cloth imported from Mexico. At the trial counsel for the parties submitted the cases on the following stipulation:

> Mr. Kelly: It is hereby stipulated and agreed, subject to the approval of the court, that the market value or price at the time of exportation of the merchandise involved herein 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, is as follows: 46.6 centavos Mexican money per meter, plus taxes at .88 per centum, plus packing at 5.75 pesos Mexican money per bale.

> It is further stipulated and agreed that there was no higher export value for the merchandise herein at the time of exportation.

> It is further agreed that this case may be submitted on the foregoing stipulation.

> Mr. Welsh: The Government so agrees and so stipulates.

> Judge Cline: Submitted on stipulation.

> Mr. Welsh: And the Government’s concession is based upon the advice and the consent of the appraiser, Mr. Bower, who is in court.

On the agreed, facts I find the foreign value, as that value is defined in section 402 (c) 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 is 46.6 centavos Mexican money per meter, plus taxes at .88 per centum, plus packing at 6.76 pesos Mexican money per bale.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 1 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 8, 2007 

Recieved and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Regarding consent to assemble outside the seat of 

government. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That pursuant to clause 4, section 5, article 

3 I of the Constitution, during the One Hundred Tenth Con4 gress the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader 

5 of the Senate or their respective designees, acting jointly 

6 after consultation with the Minority Leader of the House 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

HCON 1 RFS 

1 and the Minority Leader of the Senate, may notify the 

2 Members of the House and the Senate, respectively, to as3 semble at a place outside the District of Columbia if, in 

4 their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it. 

Passed the House of Representatives January 4, 

2007. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


ccoleman on PROD1PC71 with BILLS