alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Before the First Division,

September 9, 1943

No. 48745.

#### Protests 100243-K, etc., of Strauss-Eckardt Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstracts 47083 and 47500 the harmonicas in question were held dutiable as claimed.
#### United States *v.*Railway Express Agency, Inc.

No. 6268.

Entry No. W-480.

Invoice dated Santa Clara, Cuba, —.

Certified January 1945.

Entered at West Palm Beach, Fla., February 12, 1945.

(Decided March 28, 1946)

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Dorothy C. Bennett,*special attorney), for the plaintiff.

Defendant not represented by counsel.

Cole, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement, concerning the dutiable value of cigars, was submitted at Miami, Fla., on February 28, 1946, under an oral stipulation wherein the parties agreed that at the time of exportation of the instant merchandise, such or similar cigars to thosle described in the items hereinafter fisted were freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Cuba, the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for export to the United States, at the *341following values, tibe prices at which such or similar merchandise was sold or offered for sale for home consumption being no higher:

*Value Consular invoice No. Item {per*thousand)

035_ 20,000 Predilectos 50’s_ $70

035_ 10,000 Londres 50’s_ 85

036_'_ 5,000 Londres 50’s_ 85

037_ 1,000 Medias Coronas 50’s. 110

037- 3,000 Petit de Lis 50’s_ 95

037_' 5,000 Londres 50’s_ 85

037_ 3,000 Conchas 50’s_ 80

038_ 5,000 Predilectos 50’s_ 70

038_ 2,500 Panetelas 50’s_ 90

038_ 5,000 Londres 50’s_ 85

All of the foregoing prices are net, packed.

On the established facts, I hold export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. 1940 ed. § 1402 (d)), to be the proper basis for appraisement of above-enumerated items, and that such statutory values are the prices hereinabove set forth.

The appeal, having been abandoned as to the cigars represented by the item “1-M Especiales 50’S” on Consular Invoice 037, and item “2,500 Especiales 50’s” on consular invoice 038, the same is hereby dismissed as to said merchandise.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
# C_2016270EN.01006901.xml

| 25.7.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 270/69 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.7.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 270/69

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Single Judge) of 10 June 2016 — HI v Commission

(Case F-133/15) (1)

1

((Civil service - Officials - Article 11 of the Staff Regulations - Duty of loyalty - Article 11a - Conflict of interests - Official responsible for monitoring a project funded by the European Union - Family link between that official and an employee recruited for the purposes of the project by the company responsible for that project - Disciplinary procedure - Disciplinary action - Downgrading - Lawfulness of the composition of the Disciplinary Board - Obligation to state reasons - Length of the procedure - Reasonable time - Infringement of the rights of the defence - Principle of ne bis in idem - Manifest error of assessment - Proportionality of the penalty - Mitigating circumstances))

(2016/C 270/76)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: HI (represented by: M. Velardo, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar and F. Simonetti, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of the Commission’s decision to impose on the applicant, following an investigation concerning a conflict of interest, a penalty of permanent downgrading by two grades, and for compensation for the non-material damage which the applicant claims to have suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders HI to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders HI to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 414, 14.12.2015, p. 45.

1

---
No. 43096.

#### Protest 999567-G of Ferd. Muhlens, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Brown, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of wood casks similar to those the subject of *Dewey*v. *United States*(25 C. C. P. A. 174, T. D. 49272). The claim at 15 percent under paragraph 407 was therefore sustained.
Before the First Division,

March 12, 1943

No. 48094.

#### Protests 7953-K, etc., of F. W. Woolworth Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 47099 the claim at 45 percent under paragraph 397 was sustained.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                <C>             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS            6-MOS            YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>            DEC-31-1997      DEC-31-1997      DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                 JUN-30-1997      JUN-30-1997      DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                              0            639,981           271,692
<SECURITIES>                        0                  0                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                       0                  0                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                        0                  0                 0
<INVENTORY>                         0                  0                 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    0           4,688,792        3,741,448
<PP&E>                              0                   0                0
<DEPRECIATION>                      0                   0                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      0           4,688,792        3,741,448
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               0              30,021           92,700
<BONDS>                             0                   0                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0                   0                0
<PREFERRED>                         0                   0                0
<COMMON>                            0                   0                0
<OTHER-SE>                          0           4,658,771        3,648,748
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        0           4,688,792        3,741,448
<SALES>                             0                   0                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                5,729               8,167                0
<CGS>                               0                   0                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       0                   0                0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               26,465              52,230                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    0                   0                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  0                   0                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>               714,341           1,010,023                0
<INCOME-TAX>                  714,341           1,010,023                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 0                   0                0
<DISCONTINUED>                      0                   0                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0                   0                0
<CHANGES>                           0                   0                0
<NET-INCOME>                  714,341           1,010,023                0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       0                   0                0
<EPS-DILUTED>                       0                   0                0
        

</TABLE>
# C_2016027EN.01005401.xml

| 25.1.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/54

---

Judgment of the General Court of 4 December 2015 — K-Swiss v OHIM (Representation of parallel stripes on a shoe)

(Case T-3/15) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - International registration designating the European Community - Figurative mark representing parallel stripes on a shoe - Absolute ground for refusal - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 027/69)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: K-Swiss Inc. (Westlake Village, California, United States) (represented by: R. Niebel and M. Hecht, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented initially by P. Geroulakos and subsequently by D. Gája, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 30 October 2014 (Case R 1093/2014-2), concerning the international registration, designating the European Community, of a figurative mark representing parallel stripes on a shoe.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders K-Swiss Inc. to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders K-Swiss Inc. to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 65, 23.2.2015.

1

---
#### UNITED STATES *of*America, Plaintiff—Appellee, Solomon Tekle; Lily Tekle, Claimants—Appellants, v. REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 19673 LOS ALIMOS STREET, CHATSWORTH, CA, Defendant.

No. 04-56858.

D.C. No. CV-98-02074-AHM.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 1, 2005.*

Decided Aug. 4, 2005.

*60Ann Luotto Wolf, Esq., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Solomon Tekle, Safford, AZ, pro se.

Lily Tekle, Northridge, CA, pro se.

Before O’SCANNLAIN, CALLAHAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Solomon and Lily Tekle appeal pro se the district court’s summary judgment for the United States in a civil forfeiture action against $98,656.60 in U.S. currency, representing the proceeds of the sale of defendant real property located at 19673 Los Alimos Street, Chatsworth, California. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the district court’s denial of a motion to suppress, *United States v. $191,910.00 in U.S. Currency,*16 F.3d 1051, 1058 n. 14 (9th Cir.1994), and its grant of summary judgment, *United States v. 3814 NW Thurman St.,*164 F.3d 1191, 1195 (9th Cir.1999). We affirm.

The district court properly denied Mr. Tekle’s suppression motion because he did not establish that the government’s execution of an arrest warrant for the subject property violated the standards set forth in *United States v. James Daniel Good Real Prop.,*510 U.S. 43, 114 S.Ct. 492, 126 L.Ed.2d 490 (1993). Moreover, the government did not base its motion for summary judgment in this forfeiture action on any of the evidence Mr. Tekle sought to suppress.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for the government because Mr. Tekle’s criminal conviction necessarily decided the dispositive issues in the forfeiture action. *See United States v. Real Property Located at Section 18,*976 F.2d 515, 518 (9th Cir.1992); *see also United States v. Tekle,*329 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir.), *cert. denied,*540 U.S. 960, 124 S.Ct. 419, 157 L.Ed.2d 299 (2003) (affirming, *inter alia,*Mr. Tekle’s conviction on money-laundering counts involving the purchase of the subject property).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mrs. Tekle’s motion to set aside default judgment under Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) because she failed to demonstrate “extraordinary circumstances” that prevented her “from taking timely action to prevent or correct an erroneous judgment.” *United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co.,*984 F.2d 1047, 1049 (9th Cir.1993).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Tekle’s motion for appointed counsel because the case did not present exceptional circumstances. *See United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency,*54 F.3d 564, 569 (9th Cir.1995) (citing *Terrell v. Brewer,*935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir.1991)).

Appellants’ remaining contentions lack merit.

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_2016156EN.01005403.xml

| 2.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/54 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/54

---

Order of the General Court of 14 March 2016 — Fondazione Casamica v Commission and EASME

(Case T-569/15) (1)

1

(2016/C 156/75)

Language of the case: Italian

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

---

(1)  OJ C 398, 30.11.2015.

1

---
No. 46342.

#### Petition 6128-R of E. H. Sargent & Co., Inc. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

At the trial it was established that due diligence was exercised at the time of entry. From a careful consideration of the evidence the court was of the opinion that there was no intention to conceal or misrepresent the facts. The petition was therefore granted.
No. 62085.

#### Lyons Transport *v.*United States,

protests 326007-K/9338 and 326008-K/9339 (Chicago).

Opinion by

Wilson, J.

The protests were dismissed.
ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is hereby made to that
certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of March 1, 2016, by and among DEUTSCHE MORTGAGE & ASSET RECEIVING CORPORATION,
as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, CWCAPITAL ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC, as Special Servicer,
WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS, as Certificate Administrator, Paying
Agent and Custodian and PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as Operating Advisor and Asset Representations Reviewer with respect to
Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, COMM 2016-DC2 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise
defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 10.11 of
this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from January 1, 2017 through
December 31, 2017 (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 Master 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 2018.








Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank
Exhibit 35.8

Annual Statement as to Compliance For the Year Ended December 31, 2019

Citigroup Commercial Mortgage Trust, Series 2016-GC36

Pursuant to Section 3.06 of the Subservicing Agreement governing the referenced transaction (the “Servicing Agreement”), I hereby attest that:

|   | i. | A review of the activities and performance of Berkadia as Subservicer during the period has been made under my supervision. |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | ii. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, Berkadia as Subservicer has fulfilled, in all material respects, its obligations under this Subservicing Agreement throughout the period and no default by the Subservicer under the Subservicing Agreement has occurred and is continuing. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Berkadia,

Mark E. McCool President

February 10, 2020

Inv. 187 Lib. A
Case No. 8,056.

#### In re LANG.

[2 N. B. R. 480 (Quarto, 151).] 1

District Court, D. Massachusetts.

1869.

Bankruptcy — Application for Discharge — Within What Time to be Made — Last Dat Thanksgiving Day.

A was adjudged a ba’nkrupt November 26, 1867, and filed his application for a discharge November 27, 1868. *Held,*that the case was within the eauity and fair construction of section forty-eight of the bankrupt act of 1867 [14 Stat. 540], which provides that when any particular number of days is prescribed, and the last day falls on a Sunday, Christmas Day, or ■any day appointed by the president of the United States as a day of public thanksgiving, the last day shall be excluded from the computation. Usual order of notice to creditors allowed to be issued.

[Cited in Cooley v. Cook, 125 Mass. 409.]

The adjudication of bankruptcy in the case of J. H. B. Lang was made November 26, 1867. The bankrupt filed in court his application for a discharge November 27, 1868, and the question was raised ex parte whether his application was within one year from the adjudication, as required by section twenty-nine of the bankrupt act.

S. Edwin Ireson, for bankrupt.

1

 [Reprinted by permission.]

1,0 WELL, District Judge,

held that the case was within the equity and fair construction ■of section forty-eight, which provides that when any particular number of days is prescribed by the statute for doing any act, or for any other purpose, and the last day falls on a Sunday, Christmas Day, or any day appointed by the president of the United States as a day of public thanksgiving, &c., the last day shall be excluded from the computation.

The order of notice was accordingly allowed to be issued.
----

|   | **EXHIBIT                31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY                ACT** |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                        |                                                                      |                                           |
|---------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------|
|                                        | **UNITED                  MORTGAGE TRUST**                                |
|                                   |                                                                 |                                      |
| Date: August                  14, 2007 | By                                                              | /s/ Christine                  A. Griffin |
|                                        | *President                  and Chief Executive                  Officer* |

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                           2,150
<SECURITIES>                                    14,082
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,710
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      3,744
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,950
<PP&E>                                           2,457
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,384
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  31,370
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,103
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,242
<OTHER-SE>                                      20,812
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    31,370
<SALES>                                          6,657
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,930
<CGS>                                            2,264
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,435
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    514
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                514
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       514
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .06
        

</TABLE>
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 25, 2019

No. 04-19-00196-CV

IN THE GUARDIANSHIP OF JAMES E. FAIRLEY,

From the Probate Court No 2, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011-PC-1068

Honorable Polly Jackson Spencer, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The trial court clerk has filed a clerk’s record. However, the clerk’s record does not 

comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.5(a), which lists the documents that must be 

included in the clerk’s record “[u]nless the parties designate the filings in the appellate record by 

agreement under Rule 34.2.” TEX. R. APP. P. 34.5. Rule 34.5(a) provides that in civil cases, the 

documents to be included in the clerk’s record are the following:

(1) all pleadings on which the trial was held; 

(2) the court’s docket sheet, 

(3) the court’s charge and the jury’s verdict, or the court’s findings of 

fact and conclusions of law;

(4) the court’s judgment or other order that is being appealed;

(5) any request for findings of fact and conclusions of law, any postjudgment motion, and the court’s order on the motion;

(6) the notice of appeal;

(7) any formal bill of exception;

(8) any request for a reporter’s record, including any statement of 

points or issues under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6(c);

(9) any request for preparation of the clerk’s record;

(10) a certified bill of costs including the cost of preparing the clerk’s 

record, showing credits for payments made; and

(11) any filing that a party designates to have included in the record.

In this appeal, appellant appeals from the trial court’s order denying appellant’s motion to 

dismiss pursuant to the Texas Citizens Participation Act. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE 

ANN. § 27.001-27.011. The clerk’s record does not contain all pleadings and orders relating to 

the denial of this motion. We ORDER the trial court clerk to file a supplemental clerk’s record 

on or before May 6, 2019 containing the following documents:
1. Order Dismissing Application for Appointment of Permanent Guardian of the Person 

signed on September 19, 2014;

2. Motion to Transfer Matter Related to Guardianship filed on January 7, 2019;

3. Objection to the Court Transferring District Court Case Into Terminated 

Guardianship filed on January 14, 2019;

4. Order Transferring Cause signed on February 28, 2019;

5. Answer/Response filed on March 14, 2019;

6. Plaintiff’s First Amended Petition filed on March 14, 2019; and

7. Response to Rule 91a Motion filed on March 21, 2019.1

_________________________________

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 25th day of April, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court

 

1 We recognize that appellant attached some of these pleadings to her motion to dismiss filed on March 6, 2019. 

However, a clerk’s record must include the actual pleadings filed; the attachment of the pleadings to another motion 

is not sufficient.