alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,573
<ALLOWANCES>                                       304
<INVENTORY>                                     21,642
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                38,997
<PP&E>                                          27,074
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,841
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  65,954
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,839
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,073
<OTHER-SE>                                      37,953
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    65,954
<SALES>                                         55,453
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                55,453
<CGS>                                           33,234
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,234
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,352
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    49
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 578
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,541
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,161
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,329
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,329
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.81
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.78
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           7
                        

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           102,860,869
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                          0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                            0
<EQUITIES>                                     1,769,000
<MORTGAGE>                                     0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                  0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 104,629,869
<CASH>                                         391,147
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                             1,595,937
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                         4,864,173
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 120,471,433
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                42,288,381
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            19,242,772
<POLICY-OTHER>                                 2,274,788
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                          0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       2,886,952
<OTHER-SE>                                     49,533,149
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   120,471,433
<PREMIUMS>                                     26,710,628
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                            4,212,482
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                             141,169
<OTHER-INCOME>                                 5,028,859
<BENEFITS>                                     13,567,529
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                    7,312,011
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                           5,620,089
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                9,593,509
<INCOME-TAX>                                   3,065,893
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            6,527,616
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   6,527,616
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  1.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.02
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                 0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                            0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                              0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                             0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                               0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                        0
        


</TABLE>
(Reap. Dec. 9001)

Entry No. 732431.

#### The Danwill & Company *v.*United States

(Decided October 11, 1957)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

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

Mollison, Judge:

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

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court that the merchandise covered by the Appeal to Reappraisement enumerated above consists of red sheet rubber packing, Quality No. 125, imported from Germany.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the export value or 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 to all purchasers in the principal markets of Germany in the usual wholesale quantity and in the ordinary course of trade for export to the United States including the cost of containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise ready for shipment to the United States is 20(5 per pound less non-dutiable charges as noted on the invoice. There was no higher fox-eign value for such or similar merchandise herein at the time of exportation thereof.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the Appeals to Re-appraisement enumerated above may be submitted for decision on the foregoing stipulation.

On tbe agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value was $0.20 per pound, less nondutiable charges, as noted on the invoice.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
April 2, 1971

No. 71-17

#### Walter L. Anderson, PVT, U. S. Army v MG Robert C. Taber, Commanding General, 3d Infantry Division; LT COL M. H. DeFord, Staff Judge Advocate, 3d Infantry Division; MAJ Hector Lopez, Correctional Officer, U. S. Forces, Confinement Facility, Mannheim, Germany, et al.

ORDERED that said Petition be, and the same is hereby, denied without prejudice to the right of petitioner to raise the issues presented, when and if the pending charges are referred to trial. Hallinan v Lamont, 18 USCMA 652 (1968); United States v Nelson, 18 USCMA 177, 39 CMR 177 (1969).

(J. DARDEN would dismiss the Petition for no relief sought therein is in aid of this Court’s jurisdiction.)
No. 53208.

#### American Express Co. et al. v. United States,

protests 142061-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2019065EN.01003201.xml

| 18.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/32

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 December 2018 — Coveris Rigid France v Commission

(Case T-531/15) (1)

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - Retail food packaging market - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Principle of personal liability - No economic continuity - Equal treatment))

(2019/C 65/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Coveris Rigid France, formerly Coveris Rigid (Auneau) France (Auneau, France) (represented by: H. Meyer-Lindemann, C. Graf York von Wartenburg and L. Stammwitz, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: A. Biolan, F. Jimeno Fernández and L. Wildpanner, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Commission decision C(2015) 4336 final of 24 June 2015 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 TFEU and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.39563 — Retail food packaging) in so far as it applies to the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Coveris Rigid France to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Coveris Rigid France to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 406, 7.12.2015.

---
Before the Third Division,

December 14, 1944

No. 49869.

#### Protests 22042-K, etc., of Fung Chong Co. et al. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question is the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *Oy Wo Tong*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 70, C. D. 372), as amended by Abstract 44821. In accordance therewith the protests were therefore sustained to this extent.
No. 50678.

#### Protests 45937-K, etc., of Otto Roth & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and the cited decision, the following allowances were made to compensate for the weight of the inedible substance on the outside of the cheese: (1) *2%*percent for cheese similar in all material respects to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706); and (2) 1 percent for the cheese similar to the Reggiano cheese the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States, supra.*The protests were sustained to this extent.
#### H. S. Dorf & Co., Inc., *v.*United States

No. 7451.

Invoices dated London, England, June 1943, etc.

Certified June 1943, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., August 14, 1943, etc.

Entry No. 705050, etc.

(Decided November 24, 1947)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn (Hadley S. King*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

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

*328Oliver, Presiding 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 importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# C_2017195EN.01002101.xml

| 19.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 195/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 195/21

---

Judgment of the General Court of 3 May 2017 — Environmental Manufacturing v EUIPO — Société Elmar Wolf (Representation of a wolf’s head)

(Case T-681/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for an EU figurative mark representing a wolf’s head - Earlier international figurative mark Outils WOLF - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2017/C 195/28)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Environmental Manufacturing LLP (Stowmarket, United Kingdom) (represented by: S. Malynicz QC)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Société Elmar Wolf (Wissembourg, France) (represented by: N. Boespflug, 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 First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 3 September 2015 (Case R 1252/2015-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Société Elmar Wolf and Environmental Manufacturing.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Environmental Manufacturing LLP to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Environmental Manufacturing LLP to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 38, 1.2.2016.

1

---
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 for the quarter ended May 31, 2009
(the Form 10-Q) 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 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |     |  |                                                 
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------
|Dated: July 15, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ John A. Catsimatidis                        
|                     |  |     |  | John A. Catsimatidis Principal Executive
Officer
|                     |  |    
|Dated: July 15, 2009 |  | By: |  | /s/ James E. Murphy                             
|                     |  |     |  | James E. Murphy Principal Financial
Officer
Exhibit 35.5



|     |  |                                                                                                          
|---- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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 February 1, 2016, by and among CITIGROUP COMMERCIAL
MORTGAGE SECURITIES INC, as Depositor, KEYBANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Special Servicer, PENTALPHA SURVEILLANCE LLC, as Operating Advisor and Asset Representations Reviewer, WELLS FARGO
BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, and WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2016-GC36 (the Agreement). Capitalized terms used
herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 10.08 of this Agreement, I, Dan
Marthinsen, Managing Director of Special Servicing do hereby certify that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Special Servicer during the period from February 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 (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 Special 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 2017.



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|LOGO                                
|Daniel Marthinsen, Managing Director
|Wells Fargo Bank                    



|                       |  |     
|---------------------- |  | ----
|Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. |  | LOGO
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302(A) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
2002



I, Charley Changmin Yoon, 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 the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Hyundai Auto Receivables Trust 2016-A
(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 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, all of the distribution, servicing and
other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act
periodic reports;



4. Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statement required
in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has
fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement 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 on assessment 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 this report, 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 party: Citibank, N.A.



Date: March 15, 2018



| | By: | /s/ Charley Changmin Yoon                                    
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------
| |     | Name: Charley Changmin Yoon                                  
| |     | Title:  President and Secretary                              
| |     | (senior officer in charge of securitization of the depositor)
#### Lisa WILLIAMS-LINDSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NATIONAL CAR RENTAL SYSTEM, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 03-3202.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Sept. 20, 2005.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 5, 2005.

Steven A. Sindell, Sindell, Young, Guidubaldi & Sucher, Cleveland, OH, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Kathy P. Fox, Wildman, Harrold, Allen *&*Dixon, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before CUDAHY, POSNER, and EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

The appellant’s brief contains no argument. The portion of the brief labeled argument merely incorporates by reference briefs filed by the appellant in the district court. Briefs are forbidden to incorporate by reference other documents— not only because the appellate judges often will not have ready access to them, and not only because briefs filed in a lower court will not adequately frame the issues for the appellate court, but also because incorporation creates problems with enforcing the limits on the length of briefs.

*713This is not a novel rule, but a long-established one that the appellant’s lawyer could have no excuse for flouting. See *Albrecktsen v. Board of Regents,*309 F.3d 433, 436 (7th Cir.2002); *Fleming v. Kane County,*855 F.2d 496, 498 (7th Cir.1988); *Hunter v. Allis-Chalmers Corp.,*797 F.2d 1417, 1430 (7th Cir.1986).

AFFIRMED
Monday, August 09, 1999

Mr. Hank Byun
Director, Product Innovation Lab
Samsung Electronics
105 Challenger Road
Ridgefield Park, NJ  07660

Subject:  Summus Ltd. and High Speed Net Solutions (HSNS) Relationship

Dear Hank:

Per your request the following letter outlines the  relationship  between Summus
Ltd. and HSNS as it relates to our current discussions with Samsung.

Summus and HSNS have signed a Marketing  License  Agreement (MLA) which provides
to HSNS  certain  exclusive  and  non-exclusive  marketing  rights  to  selected
products.  These products include the current version of: 1) wavelet still image
"4U2C"; 2) video e-mail "MaxxNotes";  3) wavelet streaming video. Rights vary by
product, for example,  HSNS has exclusive rights for "Direct Marketing" of video
e-mail, and a non-exclusive marketing right in other channels. There are further
clauses  which set terms and  conditions  for OEM deals and allow  HSNS to bring
technology deals to Summus.  At all times,  Summus retains ownership and control
of it's technology, and sets the terms and conditions for sub-licensing.

In the case of Samsung,  Summus and HSNS have entered into an  additional  brief
agreement  stipulating that HSNS brought the Samsung  opportunity  forward,  and
they  will  receive  compensation  in  the  form  of an  "agents"  agreement  of
approximately 18% of revenue from Samsung for items not covered by the MLA. HSNS
has no license rights or sub-license rights to enter into technology agreements.
They may only handle products as defined in the agreement.

Therefore,  Summus and HSNS are cooperating to "win" the Samsung business.  HSNS
will be appropriately compensated for bringing forward the opportunity. But, all
technology  agreements  must be negotiated  with Summus and any  agreement  with
Samsung will be signed by all three parties.

Regarding the e-mail from Mr.  Kyoungbum Park, it was  inappropriate  for him to
comment on the Summus  proposal.  Mr. Park is not a principal  or  executive  in
either  Summus or HSNS.  Mr. Park has  entered  into an  agreement  with HSNS to
receive a "finders fee" for the Samsung opportunity equivalent to 4% of revenue.
Mr.  Park is not our  representative  nor  intermediary  and should not  receive
copies  of our  confidential  proposals  or  communications.  Mr.  Park  has not
executed nor will he be granted a Confidential  Disclosure Agreement with Summus
Ltd.

<PAGE>

At the appropriate  time, we would be glad to provide you copies of any existing
agreements as necessary.

We hope that this information meets your requirements and that you will continue
to favorably view the Summus Proposal of August 6, 1999.

Please feel free to contact me with any questions.

Sincerely,


/s/ W.B. Silvernail                            /s/ Michael M. Cimino
W. Bradford Silvernail                         Michael Cimino
Chief Executive Officer                        Chairman
Summus Ltd.                                    High Speed Net Solutions, Inc.



Cc:  Dr. Bjorn Jawerth