alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 55466.

#### Henri Bendel, Inc., et al. v. United States,

protests 167539-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
No. 65735.

#### Intercontinental Enterprises *v.*United States,

protest 60/26018 (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

From a review of the record in this case, the court found nothing tending in any way to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the classification by the collector. The protest was, therefore, overruled.
Rialto CAPITAL(logo)  2016 Annual Statement of Servicer Compliance
(Item 1123)  Pooling and Servicing Agreement
(the “Pooling and Servicing Agreement”) dated as of November 1, 2016 by and among CCRE Commercial Mortgage Securities,
L.P. as Depositor, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Master Servicer, Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC as Special Servicer,
AEGON USA Realty Advisors, LLC as Potomac Mills Special Servicer, Park Bridge Lender Services LLC as Operating Advisor and Asset
Representations Reviewer, Wilmington Trust, National Association as Trustee and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association as Certificate
Administrator and Custodian relating to the CFCRE 2016-C6 Mortgage Trust, Commercial Mortgage Pass-through Certificates, Series
2016-C6 (CFCRE 2016-C6)  The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Rialto Capital Advisors, LLC, as special servicer (the “Special
Servicer”) herein certifies to the following:  1.All servicing activities and performance of such servicing activities under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement
are performed on behalf of the Special Servicer.2.A review of the servicing activities and performance by the Special Servicer for the period of November 22,
2016 through December 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”), under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement has been conducted
under my supervision.3.To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Special Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations
under the terms of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period and if there has
been a failure to fulfill any such obligations in any material respect, each failure and the nature and status thereof has been
specifically identified herein.   Certified by:
    /s/ Adam Singer
    Date: March 1, 2017Adam Singer, Managing Director
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 259 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

:\HSEENR\hc259--enr.xml [file 1 of 1]

        H.Con.Res.259
                                             Agreed to November 15, 2007

                       One Hundred Tenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
            the fourth day of January, two thousand and seven

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Thursday, 
November 15, 2007, or Friday, November 16, 2007, on a motion offered 
pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his 
designee, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, December 4, 2007, 
or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this 
concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when the Senate 
recesses or adjourns on any day from Thursday, November 15, 2007, 
through Thursday, November 29, 2007, on a motion offered pursuant to 
this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it 
stand recessed or adjourned until noon on Monday, December 3, 2007, or 
such other time on that day as may be specified by its Majority Leader 
or his designee in the motion to recess or adjourn, or until the time 
of any reassembly pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent resolution, 
whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2.  The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the 
Senate, or their respective designees, acting jointly after 
consultation with the Minority Leader of the House and the Minority 
Leader of the Senate, shall notify the Members of the House and the 
Senate, respectively, to reassemble at such place and time as they may 
designate if, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
```
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 13-40066 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ANDRES GARCIA-GRACIA, Defendant-Appellant

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:12-CR-1480-1
Before REAVLEY, JONES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * T h e F e d e r a l P ublic Defender appointed to represent Andres G a r c i a - G r a c i a has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. C alifornia , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United S tates v . F lores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Garcia-Gracia has filed a r esponse. We h ave reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portio n s o f t he record reflected therein, as well as GarciaGracia’s response. W e concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolo u s i s sue for appellate review. Accordingly, c ounsel’s U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Septem ber 13, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R
. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R
. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 13-40066 Document: 00512373260 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/13/2013No. 13-40066

motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused f rom further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS D ISMISSED. See 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2.

2 Case: 13-40066 Document: 00512373260 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/13/2013
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

No. 23-5049 September Term, 2023

 FILED ON: DECEMBER 19, 2023

MONTE SILVER AND MONTE SILVER, LTD., AN ISRAELI CORPORATION,

APPELLANTS

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

APPELLEE

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 1:22-cv-00013)

Before: HENDERSON and KATSAS, Circuit Judges, and RANDOLPH, Senior Circuit Judge.

J U D G M E N T

This case was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District 

of Columbia and on the briefs and oral arguments of the parties. The court has afforded the issues 

full consideration and determined they do not warrant a published opinion. See D.C. CIR. R. 36(d). 

For the following reasons, it is

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the district court’s judgment of dismissal be affirmed 

for the reasons stated by the district court in the January 30, 2023, memorandum opinion in support 

thereof. Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36(d), this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is 

directed to withhold issuance of the mandate until seven days after resolution of any timely petition 

for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See FED. R. APP. P. 41(b); D.C. CIR. R. 41(a)(1).

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT:

Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/

Daniel J. Reidy

Deputy Clerk
US Department of Transportation '1200 New Jersey Avenue SE

Washington DC 20590

Joint Application of:

ALL NIPPON AIRWAYS CO., LTD. CONTINENTAL AlRL|NES, lNC. and UNITED AIR LlNE5, lNC.

under 49 U.S.C. 55 41308 and 41309 for approval and antitrust immunity for alliance agreements

Docket DOT-OST-2009-0350

CONFIDENTIALITY AFFIDAVIT FOR HUBERT HORAN

l, Hubert Horan, declare as follows;

1. I am an interested party to this case and I need to examine information made available by parties to

this proceeding that may be considered confidential under 14 CFR 302.12. I also qualify as an expert

witness, having worked in the airline industry {or nearly thirty years, with direct experience with the U5-

Japan market and most of the issues raised by this case.

2. I will use the con{idential informatlon in this proceeding only for the purpose of participating in this

proceeding.

3. lwill disclose such information only to other persons who have filed a confidentiality affidavit in Docket

DOT-O5T-2009-0350.

4. Pursuant to 28 U.S-C. S 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

16 February 2010
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

A copy of the foregoing was served on 16 February 2010. upon the

following persons via email:

ca rl. n elso n @aa.com

jeffrey.ogar@aa.com

cjsimpson@zsrlaw.com

dmendersbee@zsrlaw.com

mlbenge@zsrlaw.com

rbkeiner@crowell.com

gmu rphy@crowell.com

lhalloway@crowel l.com

mrosia@crowell.com

thomas.boll ing@coai r.com

hkamen@coair.com

bruce.rabinovitz@wilmerha le.com

david.hef{ernan@wilmerhale.com

jeff rey.manley@united.com

ju lie.oettinger@united.com

benjamin.slocum@usairways.com

howard_kass@usairways.com

donna.kooperstein@usdoj. gov

jil l.ptacek@usdoj.gov

mike.orr@airl ineinfo.com

byerlyjr@state.gov

recoh n@h h law.com

sacha.vanderbellen@delta.com

jeff.morgan@delta.com

jhill@dowlohnes.com

nssparks@fedex.com

anbird@fedex.com

Kevi n.montgomery@polarai rcargo.com

rsi lverberg@sgbdc.com

dvaug hn@kelleydrye.com

esauer@ssd.com

todd.homan@dot.gov

peter.irvine@dot.gov

wkaras@steptoe.com

cAosain@steptoe.com

recohn@hhlaw.com

a--

u bert Horan

16 February 2010
(Reap. Dec. 8839)

#### Amzo et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 794501, etc.

(Decided June 13, 1957)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiffs.

*Qeorge 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 the attorneys for the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise covered by the Appeals to Reappraisement enumerated on the schedule attached hereto and made a part hereof, consists of chinaware imported from Germany.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED, that the appraised values of the merchandise covered by the Appeals to Reappraisement enumerated on the schedule attached hereto and made a part hereof less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the Appraiser in similar cases, is equal to the market 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 the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States 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 there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise.

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

On tbe agreed facts I find tbe export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of tbe Tariff Act of 1930, to be tbe proper basis for tbe determination of the value of tbe merchandise here involved, and that such values were the appraised values, less the additions made by tbe importer on entry because of advances by tbe appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MARK A. KORNMANN, et al., :

:

Plaintiffs, : Civil Action No.: 14-01677 (RC)

:

v. : Re Document No.: 3

:

JONATHAN JOHNSON, et al., :

:

Defendants. :

ORDER

GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND FOR 

SANCTIONS

On October 8, 2014, Defendant Jonathan Johnson filed a notice of removal from the 

Superior Court of the District of Columbia. See ECF No. 1. On October 11, 2014, Plaintiffs 

Mark A. Kornmann and Calvin Gerald-Kornmann filed a motion to dismiss for lack of 

jurisdiction or, in the alternative, to remand to the Superior Court, and for sanctions under 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. See ECF No. 3. The response from Mr. Johnson, who is 

proceeding pro se, was due on October 27, 2014. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(1); D.D.C. Civ. R.

7(b). 

On November 7, 2014, this Court opted not to treat Plaintiffs’ motion as conceded under 

Local Civil Rule 7(b), but instead advised Mr. Johnson of his obligations under the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure and the Local Civil Rules and ordered him to respond to Plaintiffs’ motion on 

or before December 8, 2014. See ECF No. 4; Neal v. Kelly, 963 F.2d 453 (D.C. Cir. 1992); Fox

v. Strickland, 837 F.2d 507 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (per curiam). The Court explained that if Mr. 

Johnson failed to respond to Plaintiffs’ motion, the Court may treat the motion as conceded, 
grant the motion, remand this action to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, and 

impose monetary sanctions. See ECF No. 4. 

December 8, 2014, has now passed, and Mr. Johnson has not responded to Plaintiffs’ 

motion. The Court therefore treats as conceded Plaintiffs’ argument that this Court lacks 

subject-matter jurisdiction, on grounds that the parties are not completely diverse. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332(a).

Notwithstanding Mr. Johnson’s failure to respond, the Court denies Plaintiffs’ request for 

sanctions under Rule 11. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. While the Court does not look favorably upon 

Mr. Johnson’s removal of this action two days after entry of judgment in the Superior Court, see 

Pls.’ Ex. A, Plaintiffs have not met their burden of demonstrating that the “extreme punishment” 

of Rule 11 sanctions is warranted here, Naegele v. Albers, 355 F. Supp. 2d 129, 144 (D.D.C. 

2005). Additionally, the Court recognizes that Mr. Johnson “is a pro se [defendant] who lacks 

the training possessed by a licensed attorney.” Dorsey v. Am. Express Co., 680 F. Supp. 2d 250, 

255 (D.D.C. 2010). The Court thus exercises its discretion to deny Plaintiffs’ request for Rule 11 

sanctions.

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to remand to the Superior 

Court and for sanctions (ECF No. 3) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. It is 

hereby ORDERED that this action is remanded to the Small Claims Branch of the Superior 

Court of the District of Columbia.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 9, 2014 RUDOLPH CONTRERAS

United States District Judge
No. 48759.

#### Protests 985808-G, etc., of Pistorino & Co., Inc., et al. (Boston).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and the cited cases the following allowances were made by the court to compensate for foreign substances on the outside of certain cheese: (1) 21⁄2 percent for cheese similar to that the subject of *Scaramelli*v. *United States*(9 Cust. Ct. 270, C. D. 706), and (2) 1 percent for certain other cheese covered by said C. D. 706. Protests sustained to this extent.
INTERNET BUSINESS'S INTERNATIONAL, INC.
        3900 Birch Street Suite 111 Newport Beach, Calif. 92660
         Telephone (949) 833-0261 Facsimile (949) 833-0762

August 27, 1999

To Wade Whitley

@webmasters@realty-solution.com

Re; Acquisition of MLHP online loan processing, AKA "Lifestyle
Mortgage Partners".

Dear Mr. Whitely:

The following proposal is for the acquisition for the Mortgage
Loans Home AKA "Lifestyle Mortgage Partners" page online
processing.

1.  We would pay to  your group $5,000.00  as a monthly fee.

2.  We would issue 5,000,000 shares of IBUI stock restricted as per
rule 144. These shares would be released pending that we process
and approve 70  loans obtained  by us through our Website, over
the next twelve months.

3.  If the target goal of 70 approved loans is not met then the
stocks released to you would be prorated  proportionally and
returned to the treasury.

4.  Shares would be issued to " Lifestyle Mortgage Partners". The
partnership shall be made up by as follows.

5.  The partnership consists of;

(a)  Mortgage lender to fund loans
(b)  Web designer
(c)  Consultant's
(d)  Attorney to manger transaction
(e)  Loan processor

6.  I understand each party shall receive 800,000 shares.

7.  Your California partners shall put together;

(a)  The Joint Venture agreement
(b)  The site acquisition agreement.

8.  We represent that we will either have or obtain sufficient
manpower to process and fund loans obtained through our website.

If these terms and conditions are agreeable to you please
indicate by return E-Mail, then sign and fax back a copy and mail
back the original.

Sincerely



/s/  Albert Reda
Albert Reda, CEO

Read and Accepted by

Lifestyle Mortgage Partners


By: /s/  Wade Whitely
Wade Whitely, General Partner

Dated: September 15, 1999
# C_2016364EN.01005501.xml

| 3.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 364/55 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 364/55

---

Order of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 18 July 2016 — Possanzini v Frontex

(Case F-68/15) (1)

((Civil service - Frontex staff - Temporary staff - Non-renewal of contract based on the applicant’s appraisal report relating to 2009 - Proof of notification of the report - Absence - Annulment by the Tribunal - Compliance with the judgment - Notification of the appraisal report - Delay in the production and communication of the report))

(2016/C 364/71)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Daniele Possanzini (Pisa, Italy) (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union (represented by: H. Caniard and V. Peres de Almeida, acting as Agents, D. Waelbroeck and A. Duron, lawyers)

Subject matter of the case

Application for annulment of the applicant’s appraisal report relating to 2009 and the claim for damages for the non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Operative part of the order

| 1) | The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded. |
| --- | --- |

1)

The action is dismissed as manifestly unfounded.

| 2) | Daniele Possanzini is to bear his own cost and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Daniele Possanzini is to bear his own cost and is ordered to pay the costs incurred by the European Agency for the Management of Operational Cooperation at the External Borders of the Member States of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 245, 27.7.2015, p. 49.

---
No. 48726.

#### Protests 41281-K, etc., of Kaufmann Dept. Stores et al. (Pittsburgh, etc.).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
August 27, 1957

Reap. Dec. 8980.

#### Grossman *& Weissman, Inc., et al.*v. *United*States.

Entered at New York, N. Y. [Not published.] Motion by plaintiffs.
No. 40386.

#### Protest 771044-G of William Shaland (New York).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of tambourines or so-called noisemakers in chief value of paper. The claim at 35 percent under paragraph 1413 was sustained on the authority of Abstract 36935.
No. 53773.

protests 56651- K, etc. (Boston).

#### J. Cryan & P. E. Woodward et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
<PAGE> 1
EXHIBIT 31a
CERTIFICATIONS

I, Michael E. Batten, certify that:

1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Twin Disc,
Incorporated;

2.    Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly 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-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a)    designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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)    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c)    presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
as of the Evaluation Date;

5.    The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation, 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 in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls;
and

6.    The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in
this quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date:  November 12, 2004                 /s/ MICHAEL E. BATTEN
                                         Michael E. Batten
                                         Chief Executive Officer