alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2016211EN.01004901.xml

| 13.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 211/49 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 211/49

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2016 — Sharif University of Technology v Council

(Case T-52/15) (1)

((Common foreign and security policy - Restrictive measures against Iran with the aim of preventing nuclear proliferation - Freezing of funds - Support to the Government of Iran - Research and technology development in military or military-related fields - Rights of the defence - Right to effective judicial protection - Error of law and error of assessment - Right to property - Proportionality - Misuse of powers - Claim for damages))

(2016/C 211/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Sharif University of Technology (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: M. Happold, Barrister)

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: V. Piessevaux and M. Bishop, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action for, first, annulment of Council Decision 2014/776/CFSP of 7 November 2014 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2014 L 325, p. 19), in so far as it includes the applicant’s name on the list in Annex II to Council Decision 2010/413/CFSP of 26 July 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Common Position 2007/140/CFSP (OJ 2010 L 195, p. 39), and of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1202/2014 of 7 November 2014 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran (OJ 2014 L 325, p. 3), in so far as it includes the applicant’s name on the list in Annex IX to Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 of 23 March 2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran and repealing Regulation (EU) No 961/2010 (OJ 2012 L 88, p. 1) and, secondly, a claim for damages.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Sharif University of Technology to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Sharif University of Technology to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the Council of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 138, 27.4.2015.

---
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v JOHNNY H. BARRETT, Private, U. S. Army, Appellant

12 USCMA 598, 31 CMR 184

No. 15,373

December 22, 1961

*Captain Jerome D. Meeker*and *First Lieutenant Robert L. Brosio*were on the brief for Appellant, Accused.

*Major Francis M. Cooper*and *First Lieutenant Carl F. Wrench*were on the brief for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Quinn, Chief Judge:

The decision of the board of review as to the sentence is reversed, and the record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Army for submission to the board of review for reconsideration in the light of our opinion in United States v Kitchens, 12 USCMA 589, 31 CMR 175.

Judges Ferguson and Kilday concur.
OMB Control No. 2070-0178

Approval expires XX/XX/XX 

ATTACHMENT D

DfE Formulator Program: Form for Adding Third-Party Partners and Products

(Private Label Companies, Licensees, or Toll Manufacturers)

OMB Control No. 2070-0178

The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 25.5 hours per

response for formulators of cleaning and non-cleaning products and 9.5 hours per response for partners wishing to add third-party 

partners and products, including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering information, and completing and reviewing the

application. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any 

suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the 

Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, 

Washington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB control number in any correspondence. Do not send the completed application to this 

address.
OMB Control No. 2070-0178

Approval expires XX/XX/XX 
OMB Control No. 2070-0178

Approval expires XX/XX/XX 
OMB Control No. 2070-0178

Approval expires XX/XX/XX
# C_2015279EN.01005701.xml

| 24.8.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.8.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/57

---

Action brought on 26 May 2015 — ZZ v ECB

(Case F-79/15)

(2015/C 279/73)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: ZZ (represented by: S. Pappas, lawyer)

Defendant: European Central Bank

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the decision of the European Central Bank to close the procedure for recognition of the occupational source of the applicant’s disease and claim for damages in respect of the material and non-material harm allegedly suffered.

Form of order sought

| — | Annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision;

| — | Order the European Central Bank to pay her EUR 30  000 in respect of the material and non-material harm suffered; |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Central Bank to pay her EUR 30  000 in respect of the material and non-material harm suffered;

| — | Order the European Central Bank to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the European Central Bank to pay the costs.

---
#### Keney Amadeus PANIAGUA-MALDONADO, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-71683.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Sept. 12, 2005.*

Decided Sept. 26, 2005.

Phyllis A. Beech, Beech Law Firm, Fresno, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Francisco, CA, Anthony W. Norwood, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, Brian P. McLaughlin, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice, Chicago, IL, for Respondent.

Before: REINHARDT, RYMER and HAWKINS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Keney Amadeus Paniagua-Maldonado, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) affirmance of the immigration judge’s (“IJ”) denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal *906and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We deny the petition.

Even assuming Paniagua-Maldonado was credible, substantial evidence supports the denial of his asylum claim because he did not demonstrate that the single attack that he experienced in 1994 was on account of an imputed political opinion or social group membership. *See Ochave v. INS,*254 F.3d 859, 865 (9th Cir.2001).

Because Paniagua-Maldonado failed to demonstrate eligibility for asylum, he necessarily fails to satisfy the standard for withholding of removal. *See id.*at 868.

Paniagua-Maldonado also failed to demonstrate that it is more likely than not that he will be tortured if returned to Guatemala. *See Gui v. INS,*280 F.3d 1217, 1230 (9th Cir.2002).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
Eastern Long Island Sound Eelgrass 2006 Inventory
Long Island North Shore/Plum Island , New York

Eelgrass Cover
|_| High
() Medium

| Low

Field Sites
Eelgrass Found
e Eelgrass Not Found

* Eelgrass Restoration Site
/\/ Sub-basin Boundary

This map is a product of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's National
Wetlands Inventory Program, Region 5, and was produced for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, Office of Ecosystem
Protection.

Eelgrass digital data were derived from photo interpretation of 1:20,000-
scale true color photography dated 6/16/06 with intensive field verification.
2004 TrueColor, Digital Ortho Imagery were obtained from The State of

New York Ortho Imagery Program and used as a geo-referencing baseline for
photography. Interpreted information was generated "on screen", using
USFWS 2002 eelgrass delineations as a base layer.

This map was produced with the intent that it be used or displayed at
a scale of 1:20,000. There are no warranties made as to the fitness of
this map for any unlisted purpose or reproduction at any other than
the original scale.

Study Area Locus Map Watershed Sub-basin Locus Map
About this capture
Internet Archive
Wayback Machine
End of Term 2008 UNT Dot Gov Crawl
University of North Texas
Annual Statement as to Compliance

For the Period of January 1, 2017 to December 31,
2017





COMM 2016-DC2





In accordance with Item
1123 of Regulation AB and with the requirements detailed in §10.11 of thePooling and Servicing Agreement (the
“Agreement”) for the above-mentioned CMBS pool, (the “CMBS Pool”),
CWCapital Asset Management LLC (“CWCAM”), in its capacity as Special Servicer, is providing this Officer’s Certificate
with respect to the following:



| | (A) | a review of CWCAM’s activities during the preceding calendar year or portion thereof (the
“Reporting Period”) and of CWCAM’s performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer’s supervision
and;
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (B) | that, to the best of such officer’s knowledge, based on such review, CWCAM has fulfilled
all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.



Sincerely,

CWCapital Asset Management LLC







David B. Iannarone

President



























7501 Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 500 West, Bethesda, MD 20814 
www.cwcapital.com
Case No. 13,323.

#### STATE v. GRAHAM.

[See 41 N. J. Law, 15.]
Exhibit 34.16



LOGO

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Managers of C-III Capital Partners LLC, the

Sole Member of C-III Asset Management LLC:

We have examined management of C-III Asset Management LLCs (the Company) assertion that the Company
complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commissions Regulation AB for all transactions for which the Company acted as servicer involving first lien commercial mortgage loans (the
Platform), excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(ii), 1122(d)(3)(i)  1122(d)(3)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(ii), 1122(d)(4)(v), 1122(d)(4)(ix) and 1122(d)(4)(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities
performed by the Company with respect to the Platform, included in the accompanying Managements Report on Assessment of Compliance with Securities and Exchange Commissions Regulation AB Servicing Criteria dated February 20, 2018 as
of and for the year ended December 31, 2017. The Companys management is responsible for its assertion. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion about the Companys compliance with the specified
requirements based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of
Certified Public Accountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the examination to obtain reasonable assurance about whether managements assertion
about compliance with the specified requirements is fairly stated, in all material respects. An examination involves performing procedures to obtain evidence about whether managements assertion is fairly stated, in all material respects. The
nature, timing, and extent of the procedures selected depend on our judgment, including an assessment of the risks of material misstatement of managements assertion, whether due to fraud or error. We believe that the evidence we obtained is
sufficient and appropriate to provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Companys
compliance with the specified requirements.

In our opinion, managements assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable
servicing criteria included in the accompanying Managements Report on Assessment of Compliance with Securities and Exchange Commissions Regulation AB Servicing Criteria dated February 20, 2018 as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2017 is fairly stated, in all material respects.



|                            
|----------------------------
|/s/ Dixon Hughes Goodman LLP
|                            
|Asheville, North Carolina   
|February 20, 2018
<TABLE>
                                                          EXHIBIT NO. 21a



                                    LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF
                                THE UNITED ILLUMINATING COMPANY
                                -------------------------------


<CAPTION>
                                  STATE OR JURISDICTION
                                   OF INCORPORATION OR           NAME UNDER WHICH
    NAME OF SUBSIDIARY                 ORGANIZATION           SUBSIDIARY DOES BUSINESS
    ------------------            ---------------------       ------------------------

<S>                                   <C>                      <C>
United Funding Capital                Delaware                 United Funding Capital Partnership L.P.
Partnership L.P.

United Resources, Inc.                Connecticut              United Resources, Inc.

Xcelecom, Inc.*                       Connecticut              Xcelecom, Inc.

American Payment Systems, Inc.*       Connecticut              American Payment Systems, Inc.

United Bridgeport Energy, Inc.*       Connecticut              United Bridgeport Energy, Inc.

United Capital Investments, Inc.*     Connecticut              United Capital Investments, Inc.

Precision Power, Inc.**               Connecticut              Precision Power, Inc.

Thermal Energies, Inc.**              Connecticut              Thermal Energies, Inc.

Precision Constructors, Inc.**        Connecticut              Precision Constructors, Inc.

Allan Electric Co., Inc.**            New Jersey               Allan Electric Co., Inc.

The DataStore, Incorporated**         New Jersey               The DataStore Incorporated

Orlando Diefenderfer Electrical       Pennsylvania             Orlando Diefenderfer Electrical Contractors,
Inc.**                                                         Inc.

Souwestcon Properties, Inc.***        Connecticut              Souwestcon Properties, Inc.
</TABLE>

----------------------

*     Subsidiary of United Resources, Inc.
**    Subsidiary of Xcelecom, Inc.
***   Subsidiary of United Capital Investments, Inc.
(Reap. Dec. 8382)

Entry No. 8491, etc.

#### Charles H. Hornburg, Jr. *v.*United States

(Decided January 12, 1955)

*Lawrence & Tuttle*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Oliver, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon an agreed statement of facts entered into by and between counsel for the respective parties hereto.

On the agreed facts I find the cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) 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 were as set forth in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
```

[109th Congress Public Law 309]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ309.109]

[[Page 120 STAT. 1727]]

Public Law 109-309
109th Congress

                                 An Act

 
         To amend the Ojito Wilderness Act to make a technical 
           correction. <<NOTE: Oct. 6, 2006 -  [H.R. 4841]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. OJITO WILDERNESS MAP.

    Section 2(1) of the Ojito Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1132 note; 
Public Law 109-94) is amended by striking ``October 1, 2004'' and 
inserting ``January 24, 2006''.

    Approved October 6, 2006.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 4841:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 152 (2006):
            Mar. 14, considered and passed House.
            Sept. 29, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
# C_2016410EN.01003301.xml

| 7.11.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 410/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.11.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 410/33

---

Order of the General Court of 19 September 2016 — Indecopi v EUIPO — Synergy Group (PISCO)

(Case T-446/15) (1)

1

(2016/C 410/47)

Language of the case: Spanish

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

---

(1)  OJ C 320, 28.9.2015.

1

---
(Reap. Dec. 8836)

#### R. J. Saunders & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 471931.

(Decided June 13, 1967)

*Jordan & Klingaman*for the plaintiff.

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

Laweence, Judge:

Presented for the court’s determination is the proper dutiable value of certain “ferrocite memory cores,” imported from Holland.

By stipulation of the parties hereto, it has been stipulated and agreed that the merchandise in question was erroneously invoiced, entered, and appraised at $90 per 100 units, instead of $9 per 100 units. It was further stipulated and agreed that, on or about the date of exportation of the merchandise involved, such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of the country of exportation in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for home consumption therein or for export to the United States; that such or similar imported merchandise was not at the aforesaid time and under the aforesaid conditions freely offered in the United States for sale for domestic consumption; and that cost of production is the proper basis of appraisement of the involved merchandise, said cost being $9 per 100 units, less sea freight and insurance, as specified on the invoices.

Upon the agreed facts of record, I find and hold that cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (f)), is the proper basis of value for the fer-rocite memory cores in issue and that said value is $9 per 100 units, less sea freight and insurance, as specified on the invoices.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Exhibit 32

     Certification Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

      Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsection (a)
      and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each
      of the undersigned officers of Canal Capital Corporation and Subsidiaries,
      a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify that:

      The Quarterly Report of Form 10-Q for the nine months ended July 31, 2003
      (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.

Date: September 15, 2003                            /S/ Michael E. Schultz
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Chief Executive Officer


Date: September 15, 2003                            /S/ Reginald Schauder
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Chief Financial Officer


                                       44
#### Davies, Turner & Co. *v.*United States

No. 7454.

Invoices dated Ipswich, England, September 19, 1941, etc.

Certified October 21, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., November 21, 1941, etc.

Entry No. 725926, etc.

(Decided November 24, 1947)

*Strauss & Hedges (Hadley S. King*of' counsel) for the plaintiff.

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

Mollison, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement 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_2016038EN.01006001.xml

| 1.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/60

---

Order of the General Court of 20 November 2015 — Zitro IP v OHIM (WORLD OF BINGO)

(Case T-203/15) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Application for the Community word mark WORLD OF BINGO - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law))

(2016/C 038/80)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Zitro IP Sàrl (Luxembourg, Luxembourg) (represented by: A. Canela Giménez, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: V. Melgar and J. Crespo Carrillo, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of OHIM of 23 February 2015 (Case R 1900/2014-4) concerning an application for registration of the word sign WORLD OF BINGO as a Community trade mark.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

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

1.

The action is dismissed.

| 2. | Zitro IP Sàrl shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Zitro IP Sàrl shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 198, 15.6.2015.

1

---
**Exhibit 35.2**

 

**Servicer Compliance Statement of Deere Credit Services, Inc.**

 

I, Cory J. Reed, President of Deere Credit Services, Inc., certify:

 

A review of Deere Credit Services, Inc.’s activities for the period from March 2, 2016 (the date of issuance of the John Deere Owner Trust 2016 transaction subject to the requirements of Regulation AB) through October 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”) and of Deere Credit Services, Inc.’s performance under the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of March 2, 2016 among John Deere Capital Corporation, John Deere Receivables, Inc. and John Deere Owner Trust 2016 has been made under my supervision, and to the best of my knowledge based on such review, Deere Credit Services, Inc. has fulfilled all its obligations under all relevant agreements in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 
| Date: January 12,   2017 | Deere Credit   Services, Inc. |
|-------------------------------|------------------------------------|
|                          |                               |
|                          |                               |
|                          | By                                 | */s/ Cory J. Reed* |   |
|                          |                               | Cory J. Reed |
|                          |                               | President |

 

----