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

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000101462
<NAME> UNITED REFINING CO.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-29-2000
<CASH>                                           6,255
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   35,965
<ALLOWANCES>                                       526
<INVENTORY>                                     76,813
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               128,112
<PP&E>                                         283,195
<DEPRECIATION>                                  71,629
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 351,252
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           69,655
<BONDS>                                        201,013
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      48,692
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   351,252
<SALES>                                        495,760
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               495,760
<CGS>                                          438,567
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   39,856
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   131
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,719
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    587
<INCOME-TAX>                                       316
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                271
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       271
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
# C_2015354EN.01005602.xml

| 26.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 354/56 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 354/56

---

Action brought on 20 August 2015 — ZZ v Europol

(Case F-120/15)

(2015/C 354/68)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: W.J. Dammingh and N.D. Dane, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Police Office (Europol)

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of Europol’s decision, taken in execution of a judgment of the General Court, confirming the refusal to grant the applicant a contract of indefinite duration and offering him a lump sum in an amount which, according to the applicant, is not sufficient to compensate him for the harm which he claims to have suffered as a result of the failure to execute the judgments of the General Court.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | Annul Europol’s decision of 29 July 2014 in so far as that decision does not grant the applicant a contract of indefinite duration and in so far as it offers him an amount in compensation of EUR 10  000, and the decision of 22 May 2015 in so far as it rejects the claim brought by the applicant against the decision of 29 July 2014; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Europol’s decision of 29 July 2014 in so far as that decision does not grant the applicant a contract of indefinite duration and in so far as it offers him an amount in compensation of EUR 10  000, and the decision of 22 May 2015 in so far as it rejects the claim brought by the applicant against the decision of 29 July 2014;

| — | Order Europol to pay the costs, including the legal costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order Europol to pay the costs, including the legal costs.

---
EXHIBIT 31.2


I, Christine R. Larson, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Trinity Learning
     Corporation;

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 officer 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 report is being prepared;

     b)   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

     c)   disclosed in this report any change in internal control over financial
          reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
          quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
          materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
          reporting;

5.   The registrant's other certifying officer 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 functions):

     a)   all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
          operation of internal control 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 registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting.


Date: June 14, 2004

      /S/ CHRISTINE R. LARSON
      -----------------------

      Christine R. Larson
      Chief Financial Officer
No. 49391.

#### Protest 106951-K of J. & J. Distributing Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

The collector’s letter and statement of goods remaining in warehouse on the effective date of said trade agreement were admitted in evidence without objection by the Government. Inasmuch as the record showed that the bottles in question were withdrawn from warehouse on or subsequent to the effective date of said trade agreement, the claim at J4 or *%*cent per pound was sustained.
# C_2016191EN.01003201.xml

| 30.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/32

---

Order of the General Court of 18 March 2016 — CBM v OHIM — ÏD Group (Fashion ID)

(Case T-535/15) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Withdrawal of the opposition - No need to adjudicate))

(2016/C 191/42)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH (Zurich, Switzerland) (represented by: U. Lüken and J. Bärenfänger, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: S. Hanne, acting as Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM: ÏD Group (Roubaix, France)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 14 July 2015 (Case R 2470/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between ÏD Group and CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

There is no need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM). |
| --- | --- |

2.

CBM Creative Brands Marken GmbH shall bear its own costs and those incurred by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM).

---

(1)  OJ C 371, 9.11.2015.

1

---
Case: 2:12-cv-00828-ALM-EPD Doc #: 23 Filed: 03/24/14 Page: 1 of 9  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00828-ALM-EPD Doc #: 23 Filed: 03/24/14 Page: 2 of 9  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00828-ALM-EPD Doc #: 23 Filed: 03/24/14 Page: 3 of 9  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00828-ALM-EPD Doc #: 23 Filed: 03/24/14 Page: 4 of 9  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00828-ALM-EPD Doc #: 23 Filed: 03/24/14 Page: 5 of 9  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00828-ALM-EPD Doc #: 23 Filed: 03/24/14 Page: 6 of 9  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00828-ALM-EPD Doc #: 23 Filed: 03/24/14 Page: 7 of 9  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00828-ALM-EPD Doc #: 23 Filed: 03/24/14 Page: 8 of 9  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:12-cv-00828-ALM-EPD Doc #: 23 Filed: 03/24/14 Page: 9 of 9  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-08T12:08:19-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-13-0217 SAT Date: 1/25/2013 Print Date: 6/4/2013

Related cases :

Concern levels : Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments Level of Concern: 1-2 3

Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments 2 11

Exposure Based Review : Health: N o Ecotox: Yes Exposure based testing (eco): Chronic Base-Set Eco Fish, OCSPP 850.1400- Flow-through method, mean measured concentrations, certificate of analysis Daphnia, OCSPP 850.1300-Flow-through method, mean measured concentrations, certificate of analysis Algae, OCSPP 850.4500- Static, mean measured concentrations certificate of analysis
Routes of exposure : Health: Drinking Water Inhalation Ecotox: All releases to water Fate: ; Keywords : Keywords: MUTA; N EURO; ONCO (UNCERT); AQUATOX Summary of Assessment :
Fate : Fate Summary: P-13-0217 FATE:Solid S < 1 mg/L at 25 C (E) VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E) BP > 400 C (E) H < 1.00E-8 (E) POTW removal (%) = 90 via sorption and possible partial biodeg Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg = mo Sorption to soils/sediments = v.strong PBT Potential: P2B1 *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl

Health : Health Summary: Absorption nil thru skin based on physical/chemical p roperties, p oor thru lungs based on physical/chemical properties; and poor thru GI based on analogs; expect some dissociation in the stomach with subsequent release of

. Concern for mutagenicity based on test data for an analogue and neurotoxicity based on the Uncertain concern for oncogenicity based on the mutagenicity study. Test Data: [Analogue data submitted with ]: test data for the were rat acute oral LD50 = 16 g/kg; rabbit acute dermal LD50 = 16 g/kg; Ames test was negative; and mouse micronucleus test was positive; the positive mouse micronucleus test (ip) was also submitted as

Ecotox : Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 * daphnid 48-h LC50 * green algal 96-h EC50 * fish

_ chronic value * daphnid

_ chronic value * 0.035
algal

_ chronic value *
Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge

_ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on SARs for Organic Antimony Dithiocarbamate, Stable @ p H 7; MW 822; solid with unknown mp (P); S < 0.001 g/L (P); p H7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and measured concentrations; hardness < 150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and TOC <2.0 mg/L;
Analog data reviewed under the HPV Challenge Program.Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) 4

SARs Dithiocarbamates SAR Class Dithiocarbamates, Antimony Ecotox Category Dithiocarbamates
Ecotox Factors Comments:
SAT Chair: L Keifer 564-8916
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, David A. Veltri,
certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of U.S. Energy Corp.;
| | -- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 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;
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





DATED this 8th day of December
2016.





/s/ David A. Veltri

David A. Veltri

Principal financial
officer
#### Gimbel Bros., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6772.

Entry No. 704866, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, June 26, 1941, etc.

Certified June 26, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., July 23, 1941, etc.

(Decided January 17, 1947)

*Fred Bennett*for the plaintiff.

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

Cole, Judge (Abstract):

These appeals for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concern the so-called British purchase tax, described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48.” The said tax was held not to be an item to be included in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (c)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

The cited case has been incorporated herein by consent of the parties who further agree on a set of facts, embodied in a written stipulation submitting the present case, showing export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), to be the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise, and that such statutory values are the appraised values of the articles in question, less additions made by the importer on entry because of advances in similar cases.
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

**Analysis, Research & PlanningCorporation’s Consent**

 

Union Carbide Corporation:

 

Analysis, Research & Planning Corporation (“ARPC”) hereby consentsto the use of ARPC’s name and the reference to ARPC’s reports appearing in thisQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Union Carbide Corporation for the quarterended September 30, 2005.

 

 
| /s/ B. THOMAS  FLORENCE                       |   |   |
|-----------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
| B. Thomas Florence                            |   |
| President                                     |   |
| Analysis, Research & Planning Corporation |   |
| October 28, 2005                              |   |

 

36

----
November 14, 1945

No. 50684.

#### Protests 109863-K, etc., of Geo. S. Bush & Co., Inc., et al.

C. D. 949. Motion of Government for

rehearing denied.
No. 55461.

#### V. Casazza & Bro., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 64122-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 39044.

#### Protests 780697-G, etc., of N. Dorman & Co. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Kraft*v. *United States*(T. D. 47955) the protests were sustained.
#### Edwin D. Godfrey *versus*Henry M. Codman.

A plaintiff’s book is not competent evidence to prove a sale of goods, unless he can testify, or in some other way prove, a delivery.

Assumpsit for a bill of goods sold.

Plaintiff introduced letters from defendant, ordering certain goods to be sent by the rail cars, and then, together with his suppletory oath, introduced' his book, containing a charge of articles conforming to said order. On cross-examination, he testified .that he could not recollect to whom he delivered the goods, or in what manner they were sent. There was no other evidence. The defendant requested the District Judge to instruct the jury, that the book was not *competent*evidence of the delivery. This was refused, and the defendant excepts, the verdict being against him.

Cutting, for defendant.

A delivery must be proved either by oath of plaintiff or by some other evidence. But here is no proof of any kind as to the delivery. Unless the plaintiff testifies to a delivery, the book and oath, without further proof, are not *competent*to prove the sale.

*J. Godfrey,*for plaintiff.

The point has been settled for plaintiff. *Belknap*v. *Mitchell,*23 Maine, 475.

*Cutting,*in reply.

That case proved a delivery at the place as ordered. It is therefore a case in point for us. Here no delivery was proved.

Tenney, J.,

orally.—In *Belknap*v. *Mitchell,*it was proved that the goods were delivered to one or the other of the defendant’s agents, and at the place ordered. In this case, it is not shown to whom the delivery was made. It does not therefore appear that either the defendant or any agent of his had the articles. A plaintiff’s book showing that he made a delivery to *somebody*is not *competent*evidence to charge a particular person.

*Exceptions sustained.*
#### Tommy NAYLOR, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Randolph L. CANDELARIA, Warden; E.S. Alameida, Jr., Director California Department of Corrections, Respondents—Appellees.

No. 04-56521.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Aug. 2, 2005.

Decided Aug. 5, 2005.

Sean K. Kennedy, Esq., John L. Littrell, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

John Peter Lee, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney Civil & Tax Divisions, Donald E. De Nicola, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.

Before: CANBY, KOZINSKI and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

The state trial judge was not confronted with a “bona fide doubt” as to Naylor’s competence to conduct his own defense. *See Drope v. Missouri,*420 U.S. 162, 172-73, 95 S.Ct. 896, 43 L.Ed.2d 103 (1975); *Pate v. Robinson,*383 U.S. 375, 385, 86 S.Ct. 836, 15 L.Ed.2d 815 (1966). The state court’s conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to compel a competency hearing is not “an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence *774presented.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). Thus, Naylor’s habeas petition was properly denied. *See id.; Torres v. Prunty,*223 F.3d 1103, 1105 (9th Cir.2000).

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.
# C_2017063EN.01002401.xml

| 27.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/24

---

Order of the General Court of 17 January 2017 — QuaMa Quality Management v EUIPO — Microchip Technology (medialbo)

(Case T-225/15) (1)

1

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU trade mark medialbo - Earlier EU word mark MediaLB - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Article 41(1) of Regulation No 207/2009 - Registration of the transfer of the mark - Article 17(7) of Regulation No 207/2009))

(2017/C 063/32)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: QuaMa Quality Management GmbH (Glashütten, Germany) (represented by: C. Russ, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Microchip Technology, Inc. (Chandler, Arizona, United States) (represented by: C. Bergmann, lawyer)

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

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 February 2015 (Joined Cases R 1809/2014-4 and R 1680/2014-4), relating to opposition proceedings between Microchip Technology and Alexander Bopp.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | QuaMa Quality Management GmbH shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

QuaMa Quality Management GmbH shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 228, 13.7.2015.

1

---
No. 56631.

protests 176795-K, etc. (New York).

#### Cosmos Products Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
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 16, 2017



| | By: | /s/ Charley Changmin Yoon                                                                                   
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     | Name: Charley Changmin Yoon                                                                                 
| |     | Title: President and Secretary
        (senior officer in charge of securitization
        of the depositor)